Should the state remove children from atheist homes?

[AProudLefty]

In the most concise manner, there are four positions you can have on religion. You can be a"

Theist. You believe there is something greater than yourself in the universe-- a God or Gods, or something equivalent to that. You have no absolute proof but point to evidence that you see makes it believable.

Agnostic. You're not sure whether there is a god, gods, or not. You're on the fence and need more convincing.

Secular: You're position on religion is Don't know, don't care. For you the existence or nonexistence of some higher deity or being is irrelevant.

Then there's Atheist: This is the reverse of theist. You believe there is nothing greater than you in the universe. God (little g) doesn't exist. You know that with equal religious fervor to the position of a theist and offer evidence you are correct.

The problem with Atheism is the same one with much of science. It doesn't leave room to be wrong or accept that there might be alternatives. For the Atheist there can't be anything more to the universe than what is observable. This makes Atheism the position of denial and kind of crazy. It argues that billions upon billions of humans over countless societies and millennia all got theism wrong. But, since you can't prove a negative, being unable to accept there could be something greater than yourself leaves you painted into a corner.
The other three positions are rational. Atheism is irrational.

The problem with that is that it is not the definition. Atheism just means lack of believe in gods.

[MarcusA]

The problem with that is that it is not the definition. Atheism just means lack of believe in gods.

Atheists cannot believe that molesting kids is morally wrong, except on "faith" stolen and appropriated from world religions.

Plenty of perverse and evil atheists have advocated child molestation as a good thing, in fact.

So why should people who cannot rationally and consistently believe that raping theirs or others children is wrong be allowed to have any to begin with?

[AProudLefty]

Atheists cannot believe that molesting kids is morally wrong, except on "faith" stolen and appropriated from world religions.

Plenty of perverse and evil atheists have advocated child molestation as a good thing, in fact.

Morality came from evolution, survival and civilizations.

[T. A. Gardner]

theism is not rational.

Sure it is. Theism in essence says I think there is something greater than me in the universe. I don't know precisely what it is but I sense it is there. I therefore believe that there is something greater.
That is how much of science got us where we are. That's how much of society has grown.

On the other hand, Atheism starts from the premise I'm it. There's nothing more to the universe than what I observe. That is a closed-minded position. It's the argument made through the centuries that the center of the universe is the Earth. It's the flat Earth hypothesis. It's arguing that Gorebal Warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and there can be no other cause.

Atheism is irrational because it starts with a closed premise with no room to consider alternatives.

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with that is that it is not the definition. Atheism just means lack of believe in gods.

Correct, making it the religious equivalent of Theism. I religiously believe there is no god! Atheists can no more prove there is no god than Theists can prove there is a God.

[AProudLefty]

Correct, making it the religious equivalent of Theism. I religiously believe there is no god! Atheists can no more prove there is no god than Theists can prove there is a God.

Nope. They don't believe there is no god. They just don't believe the claim. Do you believe the claim that Buddha exists? Or any other god?

[jacksonsprat22]

Sure it is. Theism in essence says I think there is something greater than me in the universe. I don't know precisely what it is but I sense it is there. I therefore believe that there is something greater.
That is how much of science got us where we are. That's how much of society has grown.

On the other hand, Atheism starts from the premise I'm it. There's nothing more to the universe than what I observe. That is a closed-minded position. It's the argument made through the centuries that the center of the universe is the Earth. It's the flat Earth hypothesis. It's arguing that Gorebal Warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and there can be no other cause.

Atheism is irrational because it starts with a closed premise with no room to consider alternatives.

Okay. A mountain is greater than me. The ocean is greater than me. That is rational.
Is someone who believes the earth is greater than me a theist?

[T. A. Gardner]

Nope. They don't believe there is no god. They just don't believe the claim. Do you believe the claim that Buddha exists? Or any other god?

Yes, Buddhas exist. There is more than one sect of Buddism and Buddhas are not gods but rather enlightened individuals who seek to enlighten others. But, that aside, I can accept there are things greater than me in the universe that we have little or no understanding of.

What is unacceptable is the idea that there is nothing more to anything than what one can personally observe and know. To be an Atheist you have to accept that position because when you accept there can be things greater than yourself and what you can observe, you start to pass into the realm of Theism. The possibility of God becomes viable. For the true believer in Atheism, that cannot be.



Piers Anthony has a great scene that shows this in this sci fi novel. Yes, fiction can be enlightening.

The main character having been forced to become Death / The Grim Reaper goes to reap the soul of a man who is an Atheist. The man is committing suicide and has lived a good life in the sense of having done nothing particularly evil or criminal. Death finds him dying in a bathtub bleeding out and tells the man he's come to take him to the equivalent of an afterlife.
The man denounces Death as a figment of his imagination and says as an Atheist there is no afterlife, no god, etc., and dies. His soul, which Death would have normally reaped and take to be judged for the afterlife evaporates like steam before him. At least the guy was faithful to the end...

[AProudLefty]

Yes, Buddhas exist. There is more than one sect of Buddism and Buddhas are not gods but rather enlightened individuals who seek to enlighten others. But, that aside, I can accept there are things greater than me in the universe that we have little or no understanding of.

What is unacceptable is the idea that there is nothing more to anything than what one can personally observe and know. To be an Atheist you have to accept that position because when you accept there can be things greater than yourself and what you can observe, you start to pass into the realm of Theism. The possibility of God becomes viable. For the true believer in Atheism, that cannot be.

Who claimed that there is nothing more to anything?

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay. A mountain is greater than me. The ocean is greater than me. That is rational.
Is someone who believes the earth is greater than me a theist?

That is a strawman. Those are observable. If God was observable, it eliminates free will, choice, and belief. If God appears before you (us), and says "Believe or die" you are left with no alternatives. You don't have to make a leap of faith.
What makes a Theist is they can accept there is something unseen and not fully understood that is greater than themselves. The Atheist has to deny that possibility to make the argument There is no god.

[jacksonsprat22]

That is a strawman. Those are observable. If God was observable, it eliminates free will, choice, and belief. If God appears before you (us), and says "Believe or die" you are left with no alternatives. You don't have to make a leap of faith.
What makes a Theist is they can accept there is something unseen and not fully understood that is greater than themselves. The Atheist has to deny that possibility to make the argument There is no god.

So, believing something itself causes truth. That does not seem rational.

[T. A. Gardner]

So, believing something itself causes truth. That does not seem rational.

No, believing something is possible rather than impossible is the difference.

Aside from that, I suspect that the vast majority of Atheists are really Secularists. That is their atheism is really a case of not caring about religion rather than outright denying it.

[jacksonsprat22]

No, believing something is possible rather than impossible is the difference.

Aside from that, I suspect that the vast majority of Atheists are really Secularists. That is their atheism is really a case of not caring about religion rather than outright denying it.

Theists invented atheism. As Bush said, you're either with us or against us.

[AProudLefty]

No, believing something is possible rather than impossible is the difference.

Who said that?

[Nordberg]

No, believing something is possible rather than impossible is the difference.

Aside from that, I suspect that the vast majority of Atheists are really Secularists. That is their atheism is really a case of not caring about religion rather than outright denying it.

Wrong. god did not create man, but man created god. that is why there are so many different ones. Atheists are just one god short of religious people. There are thousands of gods a Christian does not believe in, Does that make them atheists in the eyes of other religions, since they know your god does not exist?
God is such a waste of time. You are responsible for what you do. No fictional sky fairy is going to punish you. Religions are businesses. They seek money and power.