I think this article by the “Cobourg Atheist” puts the issue into a realistic perspective:
http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=724:most-people-dont-even-think-about-religion&catid=186:errors-in-religious-arguments&Itemid=72
I think perhaps the thing that concerns me most about religion is that -by it's nature- it appeals most to people at extremes; people who have been extremely fortunate, and therefore consider themselves blessed (and can therefore do no wrong) like for instance academy award winners (gag), and those who have been extremely unfortunate, and look for supernatural solace.
I suspect there may be a strong correlation between number of religious, and size of middle class.

We cannot prove anything about God or the afterlife. Whether or not either exists is not a matter for proof. One who makes an assertion for the existence of a being or state has a greater obligation than the person who denies it to substantiate its existence. However, neither can prove their assertion.

My lack of acceptance for the concept of an afterlife or God is not a matter of proof. It is a matter of plausibility.

It seems more plausible to me that humans have invented both God and the concept of an afterlife than that there actually is a god and an afterlife.

we all have our beliefs[and diss-beliefs][a-beliefs]
but belief [a/belief]..is so common..its near worthless

thus jesus said/..;''by their works will ye know them''

but for me its not about knowing 'them'
but about knowing more about 'him'[all good]

grim/quote..""The real questions are,
does such a being know we exist,..and does it care?..(if it exists.)""

he knows each of us intimatly
gods life giving/sustaing spirit..lives within all of us
sustains the living..in all of us...[what we chose to believe
or do with that gift..is completly up to us..!]

we are assured free will
to believe or disbelieve
to do or not do

""This is where evidence..is distinctly lacking.""

science has never made life
the best they got is a theory
[on how god dun it...does it..
as much for the most...as the least of life..[living]

""Considering what we now know of the size of the universe(s)""

ok lets go with that
expand your mind...into your body
[every second in each of our finite cells
just the activity in one cell...is thousands of times more..than every book everwritten,..[or every picture ever digetised]..

how else to visulalise
[you growing from a single sperm...and one egg]
into the huge mass of energy you are being right now

,""It seems remarkably arrogant to me.""

me too that some really believe...they are 'doing' any of it[consiously]...when its god doing it all..un-consciously]

the best science can theorise
is autonimous reflex...lol

if they cant replicte
its not science..its a theo-ry

I see the question differently, Luciferase.

>>Let's say we are ancient Greeks and I propose that there is light we cannot see and you say there isn't, Pericles.<<

So the starting point is that you see a light, and I don't see a light.

You say "there is a light".

I say "I can't see one, show me."

You say "I can't show you, because you have to believe in it".

I say "Then how do you know there is a light?"

You say "I just do"

And I say "Well, I don't. And I don't believe there is one, since you can't show it to me."

You say "Well, if you don't believe me, prove that I can't see it".

I say "How on earth can I do that, you are the only one who can see it".

You say, "Well, there you are then, that proves it".

Feel free to add to the exchange, or change any part you like, but that is the way I see the difference between "believing" and "disbelieving", as expressed in religious terms.

Doesn't make for a rational discussion, does it.

Grim,David f and other sceptics,

You might find this book interesting- "why we believe in god/s" by Thomson , JA and Aukofer C.

It's a summary of recent research on the evolutionary basis of religious belief. The authors' thesis is that religion is essentially a by-product of those social adaptions and perceptions that increased early humans' chances of survival.


It's available from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

one under god,

In my opinion you're still trying to place the burden of proof on unbelievers, it's a problem for believers, not sceptics. According to your logic Zeus,Thor and the Easter Bunny are as plausible as the Judeo-Christian god ( I agree of course).

I'm not a 'strident atheist' BTW,

I may be missing something here, Grim.

>>I think there is a (fine) distinction between non belief in God, and belief in non God -which many atheists seem to have<<

What is the "(fine) distinction" you speak of, between "non belief in God, and belief in non God".

They would seem to me to be poles apart, but I guess that depends on how you define "non God"?

Can you provide any clues?