Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#172423 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
BTW, you do not have a hypothesis, you have ONLY an unsupported belief.......Hypothesis....... "A proposed explanation made on the basis of limited EVIDENCE as a starting point of further investigation." You have NO EVIDENCE in which to base your hypothesis on, only a belief. The word hypothesis has its origin in science.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#172424 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
You don't think it took millions of years because.......... You have evidence to the contrary? That would be the only reason you don't believe in established facts, or because your religious beliefs would be compromised. Which is it?
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172425 Jul 17, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
getting sick isn't a financial disaster we Have high-cost ceilings that limits the yearly cost for both medical consultations and prescription medication
Okay... keep making me jealous!

We have Extended family living in Amsterdam and Paris. We love Scandinavia and have traveled there several times.

The Netherlands takes about 53% of your income but that includes all your medical needs, and prescriptions, etc.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172426 Jul 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay... keep making me jealous!
We have Extended family living in Amsterdam and Paris. We love Scandinavia and have traveled there several times.
The Netherlands takes about 53% of your income but that includes all your medical needs, and prescriptions, etc.
when the sealing is reached you'll get a free card :)

i have my extended family in finland,sweden,germany
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172427 Jul 17, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
when the sealing is reached you'll get a free card :)
i have my extended family in finland,sweden,germany
I highly recommend a trip on theThe Flåm Railway in Norway. Magnificent - pure eye candy!

Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch und haben ein paar entfernte Verwandte aus München.

Sie sprechen kein Deutsch?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172428 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
If your God is outside of space-time, then it is impossible for you or anyone else to know anything about him. Your further contention that this thing created all life becomes even more absurd. How can something of which you can know nothing, create anything?
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
blacklagoon wrote:
The word "kinds" is a religious term, you will not find it in any real science.
That's funny, I thought "kinds" was an English word meaning:

a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.

a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.
blacklagoon wrote:
It's origin sprang for those trying to cram billions of species onto the Ark. Reducing billions of species into "kinds" made the fictitious story more palatable.
How do you come to that absurd conclusion If you're insinuating that I believe there was a global flood, you're making an assumption. DO I believe there was a flood?? Kinds as described in the flood account wasn't referring to species or biological categories, but rather clean and unclean varieties. Sea animals, birds, and aquatic mammals didn't need to be brought on board. My understanding is that there weren't a lot of animals on board the ark. That belief only exists in the minds of those who interpret the story in it's most literal sense. Do I believe there was a large catastrophic flood? Yes. Do I believe it was global? No. The Hebrew word "kol erets" can mean regional or local land.
blacklagoon wrote:
If you don't believe evolution took millions of years then you are willfully ignoring the mountains of fossil evidence. You are willfully avoiding the multiple and extremely accurate dating methods science now has. You are avoiding an established body of facts because it clashes with your belief.
How can you make an accurate judgement of what I believe without further inquiry? I am simply not convinced that the evidence presented by proponents of Darwinian evolution indicates purely unguided evolutionary processes.

I have to ask if you're assuming that I'm avoiding what you call facts to avoid clashing with my beliefs, because in reality, you could be doing the very same thing. Allegations like that can easily swing both ways. I'm honestly telling you that the evidence I see proposed for purely evolutionary processes isn't compelling enough to adopt the atheistic worldview. That would indeed require more faith than the worldview I currently subscribe to.
blacklagoon wrote:
In the beginning you appeared to be an open minded and reasonable individual. Now I'm not so sure. Willful ignorance is a terrible trait. To purposely ignore the years and years of hard work by hundreds of thousands of dedicated scientists, is shameful.
Why would you say I'm not open-minded and reasonable? Because I disagree with you? Isn't that intolerant? I happen to think I'm very open minded. I consider the full weight of an argument. There are very intelligent scientists of both beliefs working in labs and institutes all over the world. Their work is admirable. I wouldn't ignore it. To ignore all of it would be folly. Open minded means considering both natural and supernatural explanations and examining each on it's own merit. You seem to think that I should only consider naturalistic explanations. Is that open minded?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172429 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You don't think it took millions of years because.......... You have evidence to the contrary? That would be the only reason you don't believe in established facts, or because your religious beliefs would be compromised. Which is it?
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.

Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172430 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?

I have no idea and neither do you. How would I or anyone else KNOW if such a deity would be "independent" of space-time as we know it? You know nothing about this deity's properties, yet you're willing to assume he not only created space-time, but would be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion. His? you have information that this deity is a male? "IF god created everything" is a huge IF.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172431 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote

<quoted text>How can you make an accurate judgement of what I believe without further inquiry? I am simply not convinced that the evidence presented by proponents of Darwinian evolution indicates purely unguided evolutionary processes.

I can certainly assess what you believe by your statement that you don't believe the evolutionary process to be millions of years old. Just how old are you willing to say that complex cellular life has existed on this planet? Are you in fact a creationists?

You most likely will disputes these irrefutable facts concerning evolution, but this is the stance that present science has, the stance that 99.9% of ALL world-wide scientists accept as IRREFUTABLE FACTS.

1.) The Earth is more than 3.5 billion years old.

2.)(This you will disagree on I'm sure, never the less it is a scientific fact) Cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

3.) That ALL major life forms now on Earth were NOT at all present in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.(these are facts, no one sat around and simply made this up.)

4.) That major life forms of the past are no longer living.

5.) ALL living things come from previous life forms......therefor all present life arose from ancestral forms that were different.

NO person who pretends to understand the natural world can deny these facts anymore than they can deny the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

BTW, you seem to have avoided my questions concerning at what point in Earths history that animals began to eat each other due to God withdrawing his presents. You also have avoided presenting the point in Earths history were a fully formed male and female magically appeared. It's very important to our conversation. Thanks!!

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172432 Jul 17, 2013
Sorry but you must first prove there is a god before you can assign deeds and properties to him.

Critical thinking. Try it :)
Roman Apologist wrote:
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172434 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>How can you make an accurate judgement of what I believe without further inquiry? I am simply not convinced that the evidence presented by proponents of Darwinian evolution indicates purely unguided evolutionary processes.

I can make an accurate assessment based on your statement that you don't believe multicellular life to be millions of years old. Just how old do you believe complex life forms have existed on this planet? Are you a Creationist?

My judgements is based on you ignoring established scientific facts concerning evolution. I'm sure you will refute these irrefutable facts. These are what 99.9% of ALL scientists world-wide accept as IRREFUTABLE FACTS.

1.) The Earth is more than 3.5 billions years old.

2.)(this you will undoubtably reject as well) Cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

3.) That ALL major life forms now on Earth were not at all present in the past. There were NO birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

4.) That major life forms of the past are no longer living.

5.) ALL living things come from pervious life forms, therefore ALL present life arose from ancestral forms that were different.

No person who pretends to understand the natural world can deny these facts anymore than they can deny the Earth is round, rotates on nits axis, and revolves around the sun.

BTW, you seem to have avoided my questions concerning at what point in Earths history did animals begin eating each other due to God's withdrawing his presents? Also very important to our conversation, at what point in Earths history did a fully formed male and female magically appear. Thanks
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172435 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>Why would you say I'm not open-minded and reasonable? Because I disagree with you? Isn't that intolerant? I happen to think I'm very open minded. I consider the full weight of an argument. There are very intelligent scientists of both beliefs working in labs and institutes all over the world. Their work is admirable. I wouldn't ignore it. To ignore all of it would be folly. Open minded means considering both natural and supernatural explanations and examining each on it's own merit. You seem to think that I should only consider naturalistic explanations. Is that open minded?

No, its NOT because you disagree with me, its because you chose to ignore factual information. I find that extremely unreasonable.

There may well be scientists of both beliefs but the overwhelming majority accept multicellular life that is millions of years old.

A 2010 poll by Pew Research Center found that nearly all scientist 97% say human and others life forms have evolved over millions of years.

You disagree with the accuracy of dating methods. "Radiometric dating has been tested and fine tuned for the past 50 years. 40 different dating techniques are used to date a wide variety of material." It's not just Earth material that is tested. Radiometric age dating of meteoric material is consistent with the ages of the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172436 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
I can certainly assess what you believe by your statement that you don't believe the evolutionary process to be millions of years old. Just how old are you willing to say that complex cellular life has existed on this planet? Are you in fact a creationists?
Why do you ask if I'm a creationist? Do you mean young earth? No. I'm not a young earth creationist. Do I believe in intelligent design? Yes. Do I believe in evolution? Yes but in a different way than you do. You would likely classify what I believe in to be long-term development after creation.

Why do you assume that I'm willing to assign an age to the earth? I'm not willing to do that because I don't agree with young earth creationists and I don't agree with Darwinian evolution. I'm right in the middle. I believe that both arguments are inaccurate. I don't think we have enough information to say with certainty (as you say 99.9%) just how old the earth is. But the age of the earth is irrelevant to me because I don't really care about the processes.

I'm not anti-science at all. But I do believe that you're putting much more faith in Darwinian evolution than I am in believing that an intelligent being is the reason for our existence.

Attempting to pigeon-hole me by saying that I'm avoiding answering you isn't an intellectually honest endeavor. I'm just simply not convinced that you're right. I have doubts. Does that mean I'm dishonest or delusional? Not at all. After all, you have doubts about what I believe. We're at an impasse on the subject of evolution.

Let me ask a question or two.

Can science prove science?
blacklagoon wrote:
You most likely will disputes these irrefutable facts concerning evolution, but this is the stance that present science has, the stance that 99.9% of ALL world-wide scientists accept as IRREFUTABLE FACTS.
1) Why are you assuming what I will and won't dispute?
2) Is there a poll or survey you can provide to support this percentage claim?
blacklagoon wrote:
BTW, you seem to have avoided my questions concerning at what point in Earths history that animals began to eat each other due to God withdrawing his presents. You also have avoided presenting the point in Earths history were a fully formed male and female magically appeared. It's very important to our conversation. Thanks!!
I don't know how long after God withdrew that animals started to eat each other. Didn't I tell you when we first started our dialogue that if I didn't know an answer that I would admit that I don't know? I'm quite sure I did. But that's not the issue.

I cannot answer your questions in such a way as you're asking me to. I'm not a young earth creationist, so I'm not going to throw out the fundamentalist answer of "6,000 years." That would be dishonest. I don't believe that answer myself so why give it as an answer? Do you think I want to silence you? No. I enjoy our dialogue. I'm not going to convince you any more than you're going to convince me. Why not be honest about it?

I believe that you're looking for 100% certainty from me. If I'm wrong, please inform me. I would not willingly and knowingly misrepresent your position.

I base my theism and faith on plausibility and probability and not upon certainty. We all make decisions everyday that don't require 100% certainty before we act upon them. So if you were to measure my faith in quantitative terms, I'm 90-95% sure that God exists and that He interacted with us in the person of Jesus Christ. I base this percentage on the civil legal and historical standard of "preponderance of evidence." Simply put, I believe there is enough supporting evidence to conclude that it's much more likely that there is a personal God rather than not.

In closing tonight's argument and discussion, I do not believe that the opposite of faith is reason. The opposite of faith is disbelief.
Either of those positions require reasoning to reach the conclusions that we have.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172437 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
It's turtles all the way down.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172438 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologists wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know how long after God withdrew that animals started to eat each other. Didn't I tell you when we first started our dialogue that if I didn't know an answer that I would admit that I don't know? I'm quite sure I did. But that's not the issue.

Can science prove science? Nor sure exactly what that means, but I do know this...Something is either real or NOT, either true or NOT, and the ONLY methodology we have to determine if something is real or true is science.

If you don't know how long after God withdrew that animals started eating each other, then how do you know he actually withdrew, or that animals were eating each other anyway? You're making wide sweeping statements with absolutely no support. Here:

Science shows that complex multicellular life has been around for hundreds of millions of years, dating methods and fossil evidence makes that a fact......You... A God like entity for which you have no physical evidence created a fully formed male and female. The process used is unknown, some would simply call it magic. You have no idea at what point in Earths history this took place. This makes your assertion an unproven or unsupported belief.

Science shows through fossil evidence, that animals 250 to 300 million years ago were classified as herbivores and carnivores. Carnivores evolved to be predators with large teeth and powerful jaws. Just recently a duckbilled dinosaur fossil was discovered with a Tyrannosaurus tooth lodged in its back. The fossil was dated as being from 275 million years ago. Fossil evidence doesn't lie..........You........Before God decided to withdraw his presents, animals like the Tyrannosaurus ate........what? Apparently carnivores didn't eat other animals, so what did they eat? You, have no idea do you? You can't even tell me when God chose to withdraw. Science would tell you this NEVER happened were carnivores did not prey on other animals. Science supplies all the answers here, you supply.....NOTHING. No dates, no evidence for your assertion, you can't even venture an educated guess at either of these beliefs you claim are real.

Even you, MUST see the difference between what science shows us to be factual, and you, armed with only a belief, and a belief that contradicts scientific evidence. You have to be intelligent enough to see the folly of both contentions. If you want to say Adam and Eve were the very first humans and NO evolution of our species took place, then you are required to produce some evidence for your claim. If you want to assert that there was a time when Carnivores did NOT prey on other animals, you are also required to provide evidence for your claim. If you cannot provide this evidence, and fail to accept the scientific evidence that totally refutes your claims, then please have the honesty to say this is simply your belief, you have no evidence or support for your claim it is just a belief.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172441 Jul 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I highly recommend a trip on theThe Flåm Railway in Norway. Magnificent - pure eye candy!
Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch und haben ein paar entfernte Verwandte aus München.
Sie sprechen kein Deutsch?
sorry didn't learn german in school

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172444 Jul 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Can science prove science? Nor sure exactly what that means, but I do know this...Something is either real or NOT, either true or NOT, and the ONLY methodology we have to determine if something is real or true is science.
Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.

1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!

Notice my emphasis on point #4? There's a very good reason for that.

I have two items of interest for you to consider:

1)In 1953, Stanley Miller tried to prove that amino acids can come about naturally. He used a constant flow of electricity to replicate lightning in the earth's atmosphere. But, lightning isn't constant, so that's flaw #1. Then Miller compounded his error by using the wrong gases. He used carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor which is no longer believed to be the atmosphere of early earth; flaw #2.

2) In 1997, Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin made a shocking confession in The New York Book Review:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.

So you see here my issues with trusting the scientific community with 99.9% certainty as you profess to. A respected scientist and professor admitting that the scientific method of the secular world is already rigged by an a priori materialistic philosophy. They're using their philosophy to drive their discoveries which is neither scientific nor honest. And if Stanley Miller knew that his attempt to create amino acids was flawed, then that's another damning account of atheism using science to conclude what it had already assumed. That seems like circular reasoning to me.
blacklagoon wrote:
You're making wide sweeping statements with absolutely no support.
I don't see how you can say I'm making sweeping statements when you claim only science can reveal truth, in light of these two unfortunate revelations as to the philosophical beliefs of scientists.
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172445 Jul 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
<quoted text>53% of your income...that only works for poor ignorant people who can not make a decent living and so which to sap those who work hard and exceed.
How does a $10k dollar annual income cancer patient paying $5300 equate to a $1 million dollar annual income cancer patient paying $530,000? Does the latter get his own tooth brush or does he have to share one with the poor sap?
No matter how you slice it socialized medicine means that someone who studied longer, played less and works harder gets the same benefits as the high school drop out who skipped school, played much and worked little.
Unlike the USA where dropping out of school was always in high-fashion - European countries do not share this enthusiasm for ignorance.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172446 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.
1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!
Yes, the first two are required to be truth. The third isn't technically required, especially for historical sciences. What *is* required is that the basic laws can be tested and those tests are repeatable. The specific application of those laws need not be repeatable.

The fourth condition is an important one. It is why the scientific method has a built-in error correction process. Some scientists have biases. Some instruments are incorrectly calibrated. Some experiments are ambiguous in their import.

The point is that any dishonesty will be revealed by further investigations by others. Any bad calibration will similarly be discovered. And ambiguous experiments will be refined to resolve the ambiguities. This isn't an instantaneous process. At times it is a long and laborious process. There can be many wrong turns and dead ends. Sometimes egos get in the way for years. But, eventually, the truth wins out *because* we require testability, observations, and repeatability.

If you have another way of finding truth that is better than the scientific method, please let us know. If you have found a way that can eliminate falsehoods and resolve disagreements better than testing through repeatable observations, this would be a wonderful thing.

What we know is that philosophy doesn't manage to do this. Philosophers are still arguing about the same things they were 2000 years ago. Religion doesn't do this. There are still violent disagreements about religion with no way to resolve them *because* no observations could do so. We know that intuition is fallible.

So, yes, in order to be called a *truth* as opposed to an *opinion*, I do require testable observations of basic principles. And that is the scientific method.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172447 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<
So you see here my issues with trusting the scientific community with 99.9% certainty as you profess to. A respected scientist and professor admitting that the scientific method of the secular world is already rigged by an a priori materialistic philosophy. They're using their philosophy to drive their discoveries which is neither scientific nor honest. And if Stanley Miller knew that his attempt to create amino acids was flawed, then that's another damning account of atheism using science to conclude what it had already assumed. That seems like circular reasoning to me.
First, the scientific method is based on repeatable, testable observations, not necessarily materialism per se. However, the materialistic bias has been very helpful for finding new truths. In fact, materialism can be *defined* by testability.

Stanley Miller made a first, crude model based on what was known about the atmosphere of the early earth at the time. Using a continuous current as opposed to a sporadic one may or may not have affected his results, but the experiment itself was honest. He determined that amino acids can be made from conditions similar to what he thought were the conditions of the early earth. Since his experiment, many others have been done with different atmospheric compositions, and different combinations of electric current, heating and cooling cycles, etc. ALL of them give the same basic result: formation of biologically relevant amino acids is easy in conditions that are approximately what were around on the early earth.

Furthermore, the Miller experiments have been extended to include the production of microspheres that can catalyze reactions important for life, that grow and bud and have many of the characteristics of life (but are not life yet).

As I said, sometimes scientists make mistakes. Sometimes they do experiments based on incomplete information (that is kind of the point). Sometimes their results don't have the applicability they originally expected. But, over time, and with repeated observation and testing, the truth wins out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr woodtick57 2,288
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 5 hr Mikko 2
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 5 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 6 hr Thinking 3
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 12 hr _Bad Company 143
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Sat polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Sat Yiago 148
More from around the web