Ammonite/fossil:) I have totally underestimated you. Jane Goodall/any anthropologist, would recommend those brilliant brain cells of yours, be put in the archives for all time. The reason for the complement is, that I think the world just moved ever so slightly, one more tooth, in the cog of life. I might be a head of myself, but it wont be the first time:)

Funny old world.

They were fine words, and the link....believe it or not.....I just played it...then wrote this post.

Like I said to OUG, " Just one day at a time.

Thanks.

Cactus

I'll take up the challenge, Paul. There is one god.

Now that I've made the claim, I'll clarify. I have no evidence for this. I don't know it. It's merely a belief, backed up by personal experiences. I'm aware that, had I been brought up another way, I'd probably interpret those experiences differently. I might interpret them in a way that suggested many gods or none. And, while the real me would consider this hypothetical me to be wrong, that's fine. The hypothetical me might pity the real me's ignorance. I'm not sure if any of that makes sense at all.

The reality is that the existence of God is unprovable. Many have tried - perhaps most notably St Thomas Aquinas - but attempts to prove the existence of God inevitably rely on logical fallacies and easily combated assertions. They raise interesting discussions, and I give Aquinas an A for effort and another A for zeal, but his proofs in themselves don't convince me - and I believe in God.

Furthermore, questions like 'where did DNA come from?' are interesting, but neither prove the existence of God nor discredit the oppositional argument. Again, I applaud Philo for the effort, but I think these questions are counterproductive and unfair. If we find a clear answer to that question - e.g. 'event X gave rise to the molecule Y, which in conditions Z gave rise to DNA', the natural question that will emerge will be 'how did X, Y and Z come about?'. And we'll be in the same place we were before.

The thing is, I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and I have confidence in them. I'm also comfortable that other people disagree with me. I don't mean them any harm and they don't mean me any harm. If I had the means to get to the convention, and if my (Catholic) employer gave me time off, I would go. If it changed my outlook, that's fine. If it strengthened my current position, that's also fine. Life's all about new experiences and challenges - that's what makes it interesting, right?

I was wondering what the world would be like if suddenly everyone stopped believing in God/s.
(Dawkins would be out of a job for a start :)

But seriously, what differences would you envisage, and would they impact Western rapaciousness which seems to have zoomed along since the Enlightenment?

I've noted a fair amount of faux offence taken on this thread on the question of what atheism represents and its potential to address humanity's challenges. I think it's fair to assume that a convention celebrating atheism may have some clear ideas on the sort of difference that could be made in the material realm of human interaction with each other and the planet.

(I'm not religious, btw)

Otokonoko....you don't have to prove anything. Truth is, and you all remember the definition of truth:) right! its a finding thing, that humans do, like me, and humans like you....there is No difference.

Belief is what happened millions of years ago to what I understand. There was a transitional period, where we broke through the animal EVO lines, and it happens. Thing is, Humans will manipulate what ever gives them an advantage. Well clap, clap...............we are all human:) Thats a good thing really.

:) What I know, took me 30 years of non stop study:) But that makes a DE-fective DNA understanding, we all have it.

Humans:) your/we/All and I, are a funny bunch:)

Like Atheism, its just a human thought of why all is, and its a healthy thought process.

GOD? you can have one, but don't let it get to your heads....that's when its more than it is, and people Do die:) because of it.

I do go on sometimes:)

But after all the unreal and real is canceled out, what do you have left?

cactus

Otokomoko: I applaud your post. The difference between your position and mine is you say there is one god, I say there is no god. I have a greater problem with religious organizations, from my first hand experience, particularly the Catholic Church, and others. I don’t see them as benign do-gooders who cause no problem, but rather sinister and evil out to subjugate the people of this planet. Unlike others within religions I don’t have a dislike for one against the other, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist etc some at the moment are worse than others but my view is they should all be given the boot.
Poirot makes an interesting comment: “ I was wondering what the world would be like if suddenly everyone stopped believing in God/s.” I would say if structured religions were to disappear instantly then over time the belief in god(s) would decline, as one of the major functions of religions is to maintain that belief within society and they do this first through indoctrination of the young and by being highly visible and commenting on this that and the other thing. Mr Ratzinger would soon be forgotten if all he did was sit in his basilica in Rome and said nothing. Religions say, You can’t get rid of us, we bring order and stability to society, we give people purpose in life, without us you will have chaos and anarchy.” To that I say the Nazi’s could have said the same thing. I believe if we cut out the cancer of religion the patient won’t die, rather the patient will get better.

"I don't understand all this obsessing over God--yes no, who cares? it's academic!"

No it's not. For one it is not an obsession over god, but a response to the claims that religionists make that give them rights above and beyond others in our society based on those claims. Of course the privileged are getting all uppity over it, the masses of sheeple called on to 'defend the faith'.

From what I as a member know, the AFA believes all government laws and policies should benefit all members of society, not just those who adhere to a particular religious faith - even when that religion holds a majority position. As such, all government decisions should be based on empirical evidence rather than religious beliefs. Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error.

Logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

This is the major goal that I see in approaching the issues of faith. Not to remove it, but to have it put in its proper place of simply a belief with no evidence.

Meanwhile religionists squark, pointing at Dawkins and saying such absurd things like he would be out of a job if there was no religion, (totally ridiculous considering his actual job) when he is just one of many many voices articulating the issues, approaching the foundational beliefs of the privileged so that we may move forward.