Hi AU. You say:

… atheism is a belief. It’s a belief there all religions are false.

This is not accurate. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. It doesn’t relate to a particular position on religion, although it follows that most atheists believe all religions are false. However, that is not what atheism means. It is possible to believe in a religion but not believe in a god/gods. Further, some religions do not have a god or gods.

Are you asserting that a large number of secular people would sit idly by because they are scared of dying? Evidence from WW2 would show otherwise

Absolutely nothing in my post suggests that. Nothing at all.

What does believing in feminism have to do with going to a strip club? Only some feminists oppose that kind of thing. Others are fine with a variety of choices

A lot of women who work in strip clubs do so because they have no other means of making money, so it isn’t really a “choice”, it’s a “necessity”. Anyway, the rules are clear – you are not allowed to touch the woman. Yet he is trying to touch her. That doesn’t seem like a “feminist” to me.

So what if Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks the US is a good place to live for blacks, it is for a lot

Because it is nonsense. And if you talk nonsense, then everything you say should be taken with a pinch of salt. If someone from the Muslim Brotherhood said Saudi Arabia is the best place for a female to live, would you take that person seriously? I mean, sure, for some Muslim women I am sure it is a great place to live, but for many others, it isn’t.
Come on, we all know why Hirsi Ali says the USA is the best place to be black – it’s because she is playing the neocon/Christian right market in the USA. She knows that saying these things goes down very well with people on FOX News and all the other neocons, just like she knows her comments about Islam go down very well with neocons and the Christian right.

Atheist don’t look at a belief in the after life like that

How on earth can you speak for all atheists? How can all atheists be a homogeneous entity that all think and act the same for the same reasons?

Secular people don’t say that religious only believe because it makes them feel better, there is no such fundamentalist secular position

Again, how on earth can you speak for ALL secular people? Why would ALL secular people feel the same way? But anyway, yes, the argument has been made many many times by secular fundamedalists – they say that religious people believe in religion because it makes them feel better.

How does the possibility of a virtual reality or Boltzmann brains lead to such nasty condemnation of various peoples sexual preferences, for example

It shouldn’t – as I said, we should not tolerate any form of bigotry.

There are no logical contradictions in anything I said. I simply said that life is complex – the idea that religion can ONLY cause people to do bad things is nonsense. I presented an example where in some instances religion can actually make someone act like a better human being, and I presented an example where in some instances, not believing in an afterlife can cause someone to act in a selfish way.
Of course, nowhere did I suggest that if someone believes in an afterlife they will become a better human being, and if someone doesn’t believe in an afterlife, they will become a worse human being – there will be many times when not believing in an afterlife will make someone become a better human being.

Hi Heather,

You are showing a huge amount of ignorance here. I have never said I am a Muslim or a Christian or an agnostic or an atheist – all I have ever argued on here is against the hypocrisy and lies of people. I am against fundamentalist people, whether they be religious or atheist. The fact you think that just because I have argued against the hypocrisy of the New Atheists and have argued against how their attacks on Islam are full of holes and lies it means “The only reason you consider atheism a belief is because you are so sure Allah is real” is quite amazing.

Anyway, back to the point – atheism is a belief. It’s a belief there all religions are false. Not believing in something is a belief in itself. If I disbelieve that a lizard created the world, then I believe a lizard did not create the world.
As for the burden of proof, well, let’s move onto science. I myself come from a scientific background, and I love it. It is great, it helps mankind make advances that can bring great benefit not only to us but to nature around us. I think science should be taken very seriously in how we live our lives – if a Muslim child is suffering from hallucinations, instead of that child’s parents thinking that child has been possessed and taking it to some Imam, we should say “no, this child is suffering from a mental illness, let science treat it”. So, yeah, science is fantastic.

However, science cannot be used to “prove things”. It simply cannot, because science itself says it cannot. Mainstream scientific thinking suggests it is plausible we are living in a stimulated reality. Mainstream scientific thinking suggests any one of us could be a Boltzmann brain. Therefore, to prove that evolution is true, you have to prove that you are not a stimulated reality whose mind has been messed with, and you have to prove you are not a Boltzmann brain. You can prove neither of these, therefore, you cannot prove evolution is true. Therefore, you believe evolution is true based on nothing but faith.

Now, I believe evolution is true, I live my life under the assumption that evolution is true. In science lessons I believe we should teach evolution is true. That’s because science should be about how information can be used to learn about the world we live in and how we can use that information for the greater good. What science shouldn’t be about is saying “if your belief contradicts evolution, then that means your belief is 100% wrong”, because, science itself says we cannot be 100% sure evolution is true. Funnily enough, I had this debate with an staunch atheist last year, and I was saying evolution is a fact, there are no two ways about it, and this guy was saying it isn’t a fact!

Hi AU. That’s about burden of proof. There is no belief involved in atheism. It is precisely NOT believing, just like not believing in fairies or leprechauns or any other supernatural being. We don’t have the special words “a-unicornists”, “a-talking-snakeists” or “a-talking-donkeyists” for those who don’t believe in unicorns or talking snakes/donkeys, even though they’re in the Bible along with Yahweh. It’s theists who are making the positive claim that there is a god (or gods), so the burden of proof rests with theists. The only reason you consider atheism a belief is because you are so sure Allah is real. I’ve the same argument with Christians who are convinced God is real. Most atheists would accept the existence of any god if he/she/it was proven to be real. There is no proof for any god, therefore no god exists. So it’s not a double standard. Billions of people, of course, believe there is a god or gods. That isn’t proof.

I guess the problem comes because often people’s religious (and other) beliefs are such a big part of who they are, and they feel hurt or insulted if others don’t share their beliefs. And, of course, people can be pretty insulting about the beliefs of others. I got it wrong a few days ago: I laughed when my new cleaner told me The Walking Dead was her favourite show because now she knew what to do when the zombies attack. It turned out she was serious …

That is pretty unrealistic counter example. Anyone can construct scenarios giving the participants whatever characteristics they need satisfy their own desired outcome. So a bunch of superstitious people rise up when a bunch of evidence based reality folks wouldn’t? Hmm.

Are you asserting that a large number of secular people would sit idly by because they are scared of dying? Evidence from WW2 would show otherwise.
If constructing a scenario like that to validate a belief in magic, then so be it.

What does believing in feminism have to do with going to a strip club? Only some feminists oppose that kind of thing. Others are fine with a variety of choices.
So what if Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks the US is a good place to live for blacks, it is for a lot.
A lot of people think the US is a great place and a lot don’t.

Picking a couple of minor, possible, errors of judgement to undermine a larger, reasoned, structured position is..

You also seem to be making up your own story to present your conclusion that fundamentalist hypocrisy exists on both sides.

Atheist don’t look at a belief in the after life like that.
It is irrelevant what the consequences of such a belief are. The belief itself is the problem. It is wrong.
And you are wrong in my opinion. Religious belief isn’t wrong because it has fundamentalists, it is wrong because it is wrong.

There is no two sides to this coin.

Secular people don’t say that religious only believe because it makes them feel better, there is no such fundamentalist secular position.
But, as you say, it is because you genuinely, ‘feel’ it is the truth. Feelings aren’t evidence. Feelings are not a good reason to believe something. It is especially problematical when these ‘feelings’ lead to the relentless absurdity of religiously inspired action.

And as for the assertion by some religious that secular people are secular because they want to do whatever they want and not be judged in an afterlife, that’s funny. Doesn’t Christianity allow you to do whatever you want as long as you ‘repent’ at the right time.
Also, the morals of the religions are pretty outdated and evil anyway.

And truth. As you say, it can be tricky to define but at the very least a truth claim has to have some supporting evidence.

Religious beliefs and assertions not only have virtually no supporting evidence but what they do have is more or less directly contradicted by the next claim to come along.

Boltzmann brain or Descartes demon, interesting but irrelevant.

Stand in front of a train. Pray you won’t be hit and, you will be hit, time and time again.

Religious claims of truth or otherwise are not off in imaginary theoretical realms, they are here in the real world where they can be tested like any other claim.

How does the possibility of a virtual reality or Boltzmann brains lead to such nasty condemnation of various peoples sexual preferences, for example.

The religious can try these tricks, these far off, can’t definitely know scenarios, (how can an atheist be ‘sure’ there is no god any where in the universe), but that is irrelevant. That is not what the religious are claiming.

Finding truth can be tricky and it is better to err on the side of tolerance.
The very last place to look for truth, or anything is the phantasmagorical mish mash of religious unreality.

Heather, I did say that religious fundamentalists say “secular people don’t believe in a God and being held accountable for actions in an afterlife because it makes them feel better!”, and not theists.

Anyway, why the double standard? Why is it ok for you to say religious people only believe in God and religion because that is what they want to believe, why can some atheists not believe in God and religion because they do not want to believe?

AU, when atheists hear a theist say something like “… secular people don’t believe in a God and being held accountable for actions in an afterlife because it makes them feel better!”, it scares them. The idea that there are billions of people out there who are only being good because their god or gods will hold them accountable is frightening. I try to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and studies show most atheists are the same.

This kind of reasoning completely misses the point. Basing the value of a position purely on its consequences is ridiculous. If the only reason for doing good is because the celestial skydaddy I believe in will punish me if I don’t, doesn’t make doing good virtuous. Believing in things without good reason, or believing in things that are profoundly not true is bad whether it causes good behavior or not.

As you contort yourself into all kinds of logical contradictions attempting to explain behavior this way it would be far more parsimonious to say – there is no good reason for their actions, even those that might result in beneficial consequences.

Secular people say religious people believe in God and Heaven because it makes them feel better, but religious people can equally say that secular people don’t believe in a God and being held accountable for actions in an afterlife because it makes them feel better!
Again we can see hypocrisy of fundamentalists on both sides – atheist fundamentalists will accuse religious people of just following what they want to believe in, and not acknowledge that many believe in it because they genuinely feel it is the truth, and religious fundamentalists will accuse atheists of not believing in a God because they just want to follow their own desires, and not acknowledge many do not believe in God because they genuinely do not think there is one.

As for the more fundamental point of “the truth”, what is the truth? I mean, Jerry Coyne says evolution is true, and I think we did evolve, but is it the truth? I don’t know, science also says we could be living in a simulated reality, in which case, maybe the creator of the simulated reality has implanted false data into my mind. Maybe you at this moment are a boltzmann brain?

The bottom line is, everyone, whether they are religious or an atheist, have to have some degree of “blind faith” in something.