You belive in god?
0
I really don't believe in religion but I believe in god. My friends and I talk about this all the time what religion are you guys?
0
Atheist. Big Bang theory ftw. My problem with religion is that there has always been a certain amount of corruption in the church. And when the big bang theory came along, people just shouted "heresy" and such. But think about it--do any churches believe in a birth story that can actually be PROVEN!? NO! They just make up some shit, and assume that sense they've been around a while, people will mindlessly believe what they're saying. And the big bang theory? They are out EVERY DAY finding evidence and more theories to support their claim.
Final Judgement: Religion is RETARDED.
Final Judgement: Religion is RETARDED.
0
Agnostic, anythings possible, just not very probable. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but I figured it was just as arrogant of me to say others were undoubtedly wrong and I was certainly right.
I think we're probably closest to figuring things out with science, but it's not like there isn't some tiny chance that some supernatural stuff exists, be it some kind deity/deities or anything else. I'd say that chances are, if there is some kind of 'religious' origin to the world/universe/whatever then it's probably not something people have thought of anyway.
Oddly enough, I came up with my views several years before I had heard of the term agnostic but I guess it's close enough to what I think should you want some term to use.
I think we're probably closest to figuring things out with science, but it's not like there isn't some tiny chance that some supernatural stuff exists, be it some kind deity/deities or anything else. I'd say that chances are, if there is some kind of 'religious' origin to the world/universe/whatever then it's probably not something people have thought of anyway.
Oddly enough, I came up with my views several years before I had heard of the term agnostic but I guess it's close enough to what I think should you want some term to use.
0
I believe in god, but not in the church. I feel sort of sorry for people who don't believe in god or heaven. The way I look at it belief in heaven is playing the odds. If you die and there is a heaven, you win. If there isn't, no loss.
0
As an actual conscious being that can control stuff and made the entire universe, absolutely not. Thats a fucking retarded idea.
If someone defines "god" as whatever created humanity/original life on earth, then I'd be willing to accept that it's something conscious. Otherwise I'm rather attached to evolution and the Big Bang theory. Both have holes individually and can't even fill them in together but it makes sense.
Religion only has acceptance because it was suggested so long ago that people were too dumb to challenge it and it became ingrained into us. The only reason we don't still believe in sea monsters and unicorns is because we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that they don't exist.
If someone defines "god" as whatever created humanity/original life on earth, then I'd be willing to accept that it's something conscious. Otherwise I'm rather attached to evolution and the Big Bang theory. Both have holes individually and can't even fill them in together but it makes sense.
Religion only has acceptance because it was suggested so long ago that people were too dumb to challenge it and it became ingrained into us. The only reason we don't still believe in sea monsters and unicorns is because we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that they don't exist.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
Religion only has acceptance because it was suggested so long ago that people were too dumb to challenge it and it became ingrained into us.Now I hate people who say that. By no means were people dumb. people back in those times (I'm talking pre-historic here, in the middle ages people were fucking sheep) took religion because it provided answers and guidance when they needed it and they were by no means stupid. People in the middle ages blindly followed what people, who they percieved to be more important, told them. Personally the church has been a big part of my life and it has affected in nothing but positive ways. Right now I don't go to church, I don't really plan on it, but I can't deny what it's done for me. I plan on encouraging my kids, if I ever have any. to go to church, they don't have to enjoy it, and after a long enough period of time they don't have to go, but go they will.
I believe in God, and that works for me, when times are tough I believe that there is someone watching out for me, and this is incredbly comforting for me it helps me function and to think. Religion helps me to be a better person and better interact with people. If it weren't for that I would probably be a total douche-nozzle on this forum. But when my backs against the wall I have god. Tell me, who do you have.
0
lurking wrote...
Agnostic, anythings possible, just not very probable. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but I figured it was just as arrogant of me to say others were undoubtedly wrong and I was certainly right. I think we're probably closest to figuring things out with science, but it's not like there isn't some tiny chance that some supernatural stuff exists, be it some kind deity/deities or anything else. I'd say that chances are, if there is some kind of 'religious' origin to the world/universe/whatever then it's probably not something people have thought of anyway.
Oddly enough, I came up with my views several years before I had heard of the term agnostic but I guess it's close enough to what I think should you want some term to use.
I pretty much completely agree with you on that point yet still call myself an atheist. No reasonable atheist that I know of would ever say that they are absolutely, 100% certain that there is no god/gods.
lemiel wrote...
But when my backs against the wall I have god. Tell me, who do you have.I'd like to say my friends and family, but at this point in my life: maybe no one but myself (though that's just a personal issue). That's the sad truth. But just because something brings comfort to people doesn't mean it's true.
Also Pascal's Wager FTL.
0
It doesn't need to be true. The very point of belief is that you BELIEVE in it. belief doesn't require proof, nor is it necessary. "God exists simply because we believe him to exist"
if someone gave me definite proof that God doesn't exist, that there's no such thing as the supernatural. I'd go with that. However, I believe in God, but like I said I don't believe in the church. I believe that the most effective method of prayer is to simply lead a good life and to be a good person.
if someone gave me definite proof that God doesn't exist, that there's no such thing as the supernatural. I'd go with that. However, I believe in God, but like I said I don't believe in the church. I believe that the most effective method of prayer is to simply lead a good life and to be a good person.
0
I have no problem with people believing in God and I find religious values (when followed) are often very beneficial to people and sometimes society as a whole. I'm a very judgmental person but I'm also very tolerant. If you want to believe in God and go to church then thats fine and I won't think any less of you for it.
Part of the reason I'm so judgmental about things is because I like to live in facts and reason. Something that is neither is usually useless to me so I'll discard it. In principle, I find religion useless to me personally but I know that without it the world would be very different and possibly worse off. However, and I'm not saying that this is how you view religion but it's evidently a facet of how it helps you, when people use it as a psychological tool to help themselves then thats good. To me, people who "find comfort in God" are analogous to those who use things like "serenity now" and "calm blue ocean" chants to calm themselves. It works on a different level and is a more encompassing practice than a simple mantra but religion has similarities.
And my comment about people being dumb in inventing religion, I meant it more in a sense of relative stupidity. They lacked to the tools (or even the mental capacity) to understand the world through science and religion was how they explained it. That sounds much more offensive than what I said originally since it could be seen as me saying "people that can't understand science have less evolved brains" but I mean it in as respectful a way as it could be seen. Religion and science are basically different paths to the same answers I just find one to be rediculous.
Part of the reason I'm so judgmental about things is because I like to live in facts and reason. Something that is neither is usually useless to me so I'll discard it. In principle, I find religion useless to me personally but I know that without it the world would be very different and possibly worse off. However, and I'm not saying that this is how you view religion but it's evidently a facet of how it helps you, when people use it as a psychological tool to help themselves then thats good. To me, people who "find comfort in God" are analogous to those who use things like "serenity now" and "calm blue ocean" chants to calm themselves. It works on a different level and is a more encompassing practice than a simple mantra but religion has similarities.
And my comment about people being dumb in inventing religion, I meant it more in a sense of relative stupidity. They lacked to the tools (or even the mental capacity) to understand the world through science and religion was how they explained it. That sounds much more offensive than what I said originally since it could be seen as me saying "people that can't understand science have less evolved brains" but I mean it in as respectful a way as it could be seen. Religion and science are basically different paths to the same answers I just find one to be rediculous.
0
well science has it's merits as well. I have nothing to say against science, if it weren't for science I wouldn't be able to communicate with you outside of using a fire and a blanket, and hentai would be the dirty stick figure I drew on the wall. What I take issue to is people who replace religion as science, people who (I wish I could find a better word but I'm lazy) Worship science. Science answers a bunch of questions, what makes up the universe, how big the earth is, why my penis could be used as a capable bludgeon, and why bludgeoning someone with my penis would cause them to be knocked unconciuos. However I have three main issues with science as a whole, and they are as follows:
- We don't know everything yet. We know virtually nothing about everything, if anybody tells you that modern science has uncovered every secret in the universe, punch them in the stomach because they have no idea what they're talking about. We've even been to the bottom of our own oceans more than once. The scientific "Facts" that we know so well are fluid and constantly changing, the nature of gravity has been changed several times. GRAVITY one of the most fundamental forces of nature, we don't even know why it happens. We know what an atom is, but we have no Idea of what it's made up of, the smallest thing we know about is the quark, and people are beginning to think that there's something smaller. The Soeed of light has been broken, the speed of LIGHT, a speed limit Einstein (who's being debunked more and more these days) said was unbreakable, has been broken.
- Science can't yet answer the hard questions. What happens when we die? is there a God? Why do people behave the way they do? What is right? what is wrong? Modern science can't answer these questions. someone who calls themselves a believer in science may say that ghosts aren't real, but that's never been disproven, evidence crops up every day. Science can't confirm wether or not there's a soul. According to scientists, when you die, your body decomposes, that's it, game over, you better have left something behind. That doesn't sit well with me I want to believe that there's a soul because the alternatie is so much worse.
- Science has no self-control. As I said earlier, science is not a religion, but people tend to treat it as such. Science is capable of so much good: medicine, computer technology, energy-efficient vehicles. But science also makes: super viruses, nuclear bombs, and high-tech tanks. Scientists make these things, but there is nothing to say how one should use them (there's probably an owners manual, but that's not what I mean) What's to stop the American Military from simply taking over. Bush is commander in chief, it would be very simple for him to order a strike on the United states itself. a few spies placed in stragetic locations with guns could quickly wipe out the U.S. infrastructure. It would take a matter of weeks, the tanks would just roll across our purple mountains and amber waves of grain. The rockets red glare woould symbolize the beginning of the newest military-state.
- We don't know everything yet. We know virtually nothing about everything, if anybody tells you that modern science has uncovered every secret in the universe, punch them in the stomach because they have no idea what they're talking about. We've even been to the bottom of our own oceans more than once. The scientific "Facts" that we know so well are fluid and constantly changing, the nature of gravity has been changed several times. GRAVITY one of the most fundamental forces of nature, we don't even know why it happens. We know what an atom is, but we have no Idea of what it's made up of, the smallest thing we know about is the quark, and people are beginning to think that there's something smaller. The Soeed of light has been broken, the speed of LIGHT, a speed limit Einstein (who's being debunked more and more these days) said was unbreakable, has been broken.
- Science can't yet answer the hard questions. What happens when we die? is there a God? Why do people behave the way they do? What is right? what is wrong? Modern science can't answer these questions. someone who calls themselves a believer in science may say that ghosts aren't real, but that's never been disproven, evidence crops up every day. Science can't confirm wether or not there's a soul. According to scientists, when you die, your body decomposes, that's it, game over, you better have left something behind. That doesn't sit well with me I want to believe that there's a soul because the alternatie is so much worse.
- Science has no self-control. As I said earlier, science is not a religion, but people tend to treat it as such. Science is capable of so much good: medicine, computer technology, energy-efficient vehicles. But science also makes: super viruses, nuclear bombs, and high-tech tanks. Scientists make these things, but there is nothing to say how one should use them (there's probably an owners manual, but that's not what I mean) What's to stop the American Military from simply taking over. Bush is commander in chief, it would be very simple for him to order a strike on the United states itself. a few spies placed in stragetic locations with guns could quickly wipe out the U.S. infrastructure. It would take a matter of weeks, the tanks would just roll across our purple mountains and amber waves of grain. The rockets red glare woould symbolize the beginning of the newest military-state.
0
- Yes, we don't know everything. That's the nature of science. It's virtually impossible to know everything there is to know. It's not like religion where every answer to every question that we don't know is "God did it."
- Why do people behave the way they do?
Psychology, Psychiatry, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. =P
What is right, what is wrong.
That's a subjective, philosophical question, not really a scientific one.
someone who calls themselves a believer in science may say that ghosts aren't real, but that's never been disproven, evidence crops up every day. Science can't confirm wether or not there's a soul.
I'd like to see that evidence.
Of course science can't confirm whether or not there's a soul, as the "soul" is commonly thought of as supernatural. You seem to want proof that there is no soul, which isn't possible. You can't prove a negative. To do so you would have to check every atom in every part of the entire universe. I hate to bring up the Santa Claus argument since it's been used so many times. >_>
That doesn't sit well with me I want to believe that there's a soul because the alternatie is so much worse.
Woo, personal opinion time! I find that the thought of having no afterlife is much more comforting than at least the Christian view of the afterlife. When I was a Christian around when I was 12-13, I was always paranoid that I was going to hell when I died. I am seriously afraid of physical pain, so it bugged the shit out of me. Whereas when you have no afterlife, you don't have to worry about pain or regrets, etc. since you won't exist to have those feelings. Then again, you say that you don't believe in religion, so maybe you don't believe in the concept of hell.
-I want to know who you think these people are that "worship" science. What do you consider as worship to science?
I don't think that has as much to do with science as much as it has to do with man's inhumanity to man. At worst it shows how science can be used for evil, but it's not science that's inherently evil.
- Why do people behave the way they do?
Psychology, Psychiatry, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. =P
What is right, what is wrong.
That's a subjective, philosophical question, not really a scientific one.
someone who calls themselves a believer in science may say that ghosts aren't real, but that's never been disproven, evidence crops up every day. Science can't confirm wether or not there's a soul.
I'd like to see that evidence.
Of course science can't confirm whether or not there's a soul, as the "soul" is commonly thought of as supernatural. You seem to want proof that there is no soul, which isn't possible. You can't prove a negative. To do so you would have to check every atom in every part of the entire universe. I hate to bring up the Santa Claus argument since it's been used so many times. >_>
That doesn't sit well with me I want to believe that there's a soul because the alternatie is so much worse.
Woo, personal opinion time! I find that the thought of having no afterlife is much more comforting than at least the Christian view of the afterlife. When I was a Christian around when I was 12-13, I was always paranoid that I was going to hell when I died. I am seriously afraid of physical pain, so it bugged the shit out of me. Whereas when you have no afterlife, you don't have to worry about pain or regrets, etc. since you won't exist to have those feelings. Then again, you say that you don't believe in religion, so maybe you don't believe in the concept of hell.
-I want to know who you think these people are that "worship" science. What do you consider as worship to science?
I don't think that has as much to do with science as much as it has to do with man's inhumanity to man. At worst it shows how science can be used for evil, but it's not science that's inherently evil.
0
lurking wrote...
Agnostic, anythings possible, just not very probable. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but I figured it was just as arrogant of me to say others were undoubtedly wrong and I was certainly right. I think we're probably closest to figuring things out with science, but it's not like there isn't some tiny chance that some supernatural stuff exists, be it some kind deity/deities or anything else. I'd say that chances are, if there is some kind of 'religious' origin to the world/universe/whatever then it's probably not something people have thought of anyway.
Oddly enough, I came up with my views several years before I had heard of the term agnostic but I guess it's close enough to what I think should you want some term to use.
same here
first time i've ever heard of the term too
now i've got something to describe myself then :)
0
Well, since I seem to be the only one so far speaking on behalf of god, GOD not religion, I think it behoves me to respond to these. I'll do them in order if that's okay with everybody.
- The answer isn't always "God did it", people who use God as their default answer to everything are simply ignorant. Nor am I saying that the nature of science is that everything is always known. However I think that people who seek to define everything by science are both noble and sad, noble in their search for truth, sad in their refusal to believe what's not before their eyes
- even the best psychologists cannot predict a persons every action, what someone does next can never be accurately predicted, and I don't think that psychology will ever be able to fully comprehend the intracy of human nature
- that's exactly what I'm talking about, science is so far incapable of answering philosophial questions
- Have you ever been to the Eastern State Penetentary in Philadelphia? It's a haunted prison. Things happen there that just can't be explained by science
- it can't be proved, but neither can it be disproved
- I can insert my personal opinions into a discourse into my own beliefs whenever I feel like.
- I feel bad for you about that for two reasons, one is the fact that you were so certain that you were going to hell. Personally (and I'm backed up by the bible) I believe that hell is temporary, its flames are more akin to a forge, which purifys, than torture devices. But honestly I don't think you're sure to go to hell unless you did something major, and I didn't kill anyone, did you?
Secondally, and this adresses the whole "no afterlife" thing, but my greatest fear, I mean it, my absolute greatest fear, is nothing. I'm not trying to say that I have no fear, becase that's just stupid, fear is good. My biggest fear is the total absence of EVERYTHING, no light, no sounds, no touches, no anything. that's part of the reason I'd rather believe in an afterlife.
- I consider the "worship" of science to be blindly putting faith in it's abilities. blindly being convinced that the next Ipod WILL be smaller, or that if everybody drives hybrid cars the world will be saved. It's blind faith, or as it's more commonly known: WORSHIP
- I'm not trying to claim that science is inherently anything, It's a tool, nothing more. but there's a difference between using a screwdriver to drive in screws (I'm aware that that sounds dirty) and using it to gouge someones eyes out. Religion won't make screw drivers, and it doesn't force people to use it a certain way, but it does tell you NOT to use it to kill someone else.
To conclude this post I have no poblems with Science, I accept that blind faith is a bad Idea, and everything should be taken with a little skepticism. Howevr I feel that religion should always exist, but instead of religion and science fighting they should work together.
- The answer isn't always "God did it", people who use God as their default answer to everything are simply ignorant. Nor am I saying that the nature of science is that everything is always known. However I think that people who seek to define everything by science are both noble and sad, noble in their search for truth, sad in their refusal to believe what's not before their eyes
- even the best psychologists cannot predict a persons every action, what someone does next can never be accurately predicted, and I don't think that psychology will ever be able to fully comprehend the intracy of human nature
- that's exactly what I'm talking about, science is so far incapable of answering philosophial questions
- Have you ever been to the Eastern State Penetentary in Philadelphia? It's a haunted prison. Things happen there that just can't be explained by science
- it can't be proved, but neither can it be disproved
- I can insert my personal opinions into a discourse into my own beliefs whenever I feel like.
- I feel bad for you about that for two reasons, one is the fact that you were so certain that you were going to hell. Personally (and I'm backed up by the bible) I believe that hell is temporary, its flames are more akin to a forge, which purifys, than torture devices. But honestly I don't think you're sure to go to hell unless you did something major, and I didn't kill anyone, did you?
Secondally, and this adresses the whole "no afterlife" thing, but my greatest fear, I mean it, my absolute greatest fear, is nothing. I'm not trying to say that I have no fear, becase that's just stupid, fear is good. My biggest fear is the total absence of EVERYTHING, no light, no sounds, no touches, no anything. that's part of the reason I'd rather believe in an afterlife.
- I consider the "worship" of science to be blindly putting faith in it's abilities. blindly being convinced that the next Ipod WILL be smaller, or that if everybody drives hybrid cars the world will be saved. It's blind faith, or as it's more commonly known: WORSHIP
- I'm not trying to claim that science is inherently anything, It's a tool, nothing more. but there's a difference between using a screwdriver to drive in screws (I'm aware that that sounds dirty) and using it to gouge someones eyes out. Religion won't make screw drivers, and it doesn't force people to use it a certain way, but it does tell you NOT to use it to kill someone else.
To conclude this post I have no poblems with Science, I accept that blind faith is a bad Idea, and everything should be taken with a little skepticism. Howevr I feel that religion should always exist, but instead of religion and science fighting they should work together.
0
However I think that people who seek to define everything by science are both noble and sad, noble in their search for truth, sad in their refusal to believe what's not before their eyes
But if it's not before their eyes (in a purely metaphorical sense, of course), then what reason do they have to believe that it's there?
I can insert my personal opinions into a discourse into my own beliefs whenever I feel like.
I wasn't criticizing you for using personal opinions. That didn't come out the way I wanted to, I guess.
Religion won't make screw drivers, and it doesn't force people to use it a certain way, but it does tell you NOT to use it to kill someone else.
Unless the person is gay or doesn't believe in your particular version of god, right? Not saying you believe that, I doubt you do, but I can't think of any religions that are purely positive. Those religions were created in much different times when views like that were the norm (those two particular ones still seem to be to an extent. <_<).
Most of those ideas aren't accepted now in modern society, and it seems that religious people just shove them under the rug as if they never existed. Only pay attention to the good, disregard the bad.
Howevr I feel that religion should always exist, but instead of religion and science fighting they should work together.
I personally think that religion and science are basically incompatible, and that any good that religion has done is far outweighed by the bad. Not to mention that the good that it has done doesn't necessarily have to be attributed to religion. I personally think human empathy is what contributes most to the good that man can do.
In the past, religion might've been needed for things like keeping the peace and promoting good will toward your fellow man, but I don't think we need it anymore. And if you're doing good just for the god points, then I question your true intentions.
But if it's not before their eyes (in a purely metaphorical sense, of course), then what reason do they have to believe that it's there?
I can insert my personal opinions into a discourse into my own beliefs whenever I feel like.
I wasn't criticizing you for using personal opinions. That didn't come out the way I wanted to, I guess.
Religion won't make screw drivers, and it doesn't force people to use it a certain way, but it does tell you NOT to use it to kill someone else.
Unless the person is gay or doesn't believe in your particular version of god, right? Not saying you believe that, I doubt you do, but I can't think of any religions that are purely positive. Those religions were created in much different times when views like that were the norm (those two particular ones still seem to be to an extent. <_<).
Most of those ideas aren't accepted now in modern society, and it seems that religious people just shove them under the rug as if they never existed. Only pay attention to the good, disregard the bad.
Howevr I feel that religion should always exist, but instead of religion and science fighting they should work together.
I personally think that religion and science are basically incompatible, and that any good that religion has done is far outweighed by the bad. Not to mention that the good that it has done doesn't necessarily have to be attributed to religion. I personally think human empathy is what contributes most to the good that man can do.
In the past, religion might've been needed for things like keeping the peace and promoting good will toward your fellow man, but I don't think we need it anymore. And if you're doing good just for the god points, then I question your true intentions.
0
God cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, the _belief_ on his existence is as valid as the _belief_ in his non-existence. However, since _all_ atheists think that they are smarter than deists purely on the basis on this belief, they are guilty of intellectual hypocrisy. Its like saying black people are inferior to white white people, failing to give proof (because, you know, they can't), then labelling everyone thinking otherwise as stupid. While deists themselves are also guilty of thinking themselves superior, not every deist is that way.
tl;dr -- there are no humble atheists, and all of them think they're smarter than anyone who believes in God... even when they aren't
Personally, I believe in God. For the longest time, I was agnostic, but as I grew older I found myself praying more and more. Most of the time I think he's an ass with a perverted sense of humor, though.
As for those who don't believe in God, here's Pascal for you:
You don't believe in God but he exists -- you're so fucked in the afterlife
You don't believe in God and he doesn't exist -- no problem
You believe in God and he doesn't exist -- you look like a fool, but otherwise no problem
You believe in God and he exists -- jackpot!
From a gambling viewpoint, there is no payoff from _not_ believing in God. There are, of course, numerous things wrong with this, but its simple enough to get the point across.
tl;dr -- there are no humble atheists, and all of them think they're smarter than anyone who believes in God... even when they aren't
Personally, I believe in God. For the longest time, I was agnostic, but as I grew older I found myself praying more and more. Most of the time I think he's an ass with a perverted sense of humor, though.
As for those who don't believe in God, here's Pascal for you:
You don't believe in God but he exists -- you're so fucked in the afterlife
You don't believe in God and he doesn't exist -- no problem
You believe in God and he doesn't exist -- you look like a fool, but otherwise no problem
You believe in God and he exists -- jackpot!
From a gambling viewpoint, there is no payoff from _not_ believing in God. There are, of course, numerous things wrong with this, but its simple enough to get the point across.
0
fatman wrote...
God cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, the _belief_ on his existence is as valid as the _belief_ in his non-existence.Sigh.
Santa Clause cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, the _belief_ on his existence is as valid as the _belief_ in his non-existence.
0
Yes. What's the problem? It is belief, after all. That's the nature of faith -- once proof one way or another is given and irrefutable, it is no longer simply belief, but fact. This in no way means that I am saying Flying Spaghetti Monster/Santa Claus/Unicorn is real because you believe it is, but if you _really_ believe that the FSM is real, there is really no way for me to prove otherwise, is there?
0
fatman wrote...
Yes. What's the problem? It is belief, after all. That's the nature of faith -- once proof one way or another is given and irrefutable, it is no longer simply belief, but fact. This in no way means that I am saying Flying Spaghetti Monster/Santa Claus/Unicorn is real because you believe it is, but if you _really_ believe that the FSM is real, there is really no way for me to prove otherwise, is there?No, no there isn't. But to say that those are both equally valid viewpoints is completely wrong. There is no evidence for Santa Claus, so there is absolutely no reason to believe in him. Yet, as it goes, absence of proof isn't proof of absence, therefore it would be foolish to say that you absolutely know that there is no Santa Claus. While it does take faith to say that you don't believe in Santa Claus, the amount of faith is so minuscule that it isn't even worth mentioning. Meanwhile, to say that you believe in Santa Clause would take a massive amount of faith since there is no evidence. You could easily call it blind faith.
0
I agree with most of the latter post, but then it begs the question:
Are you saying then the the viewpoint of either atheism/deism is more weighty than the other? Santa Claus was an extreme example -- yes, it will take a massive amount of faith to believe that one is true (at least, the chimney-travelling, reindeer-pulled, works-once-a-year version). But how about atheism vs deism (which was my point)?
But to say that those are both equally valid viewpoints is completely wrong.
Are you saying then the the viewpoint of either atheism/deism is more weighty than the other? Santa Claus was an extreme example -- yes, it will take a massive amount of faith to believe that one is true (at least, the chimney-travelling, reindeer-pulled, works-once-a-year version). But how about atheism vs deism (which was my point)?