The Trouble with Atheism

[Khandro]

Are atheists neo-Jacobins ?
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/

[owdhamer]

I am not a believer in god but this does not stop attending funerals, etc , out of respect for the person concerned,likewise two of my neighbours who are avid church goers are good friends. i have no idea how mrs owd will dispose of me when i die and i wont be bothered. what im trying to say is respect other peoples views even if you dont agree with them.

[sandyRoe]

Birdie,
What am I doing in this church of atheists? I'm bearding the lions and lionesses in their dens.

[Quizmonster]

As Dawkins pointed out, you could ask any devout believer what it would take to change his/her mind and you'd get the answer, "My faith is unshakeable, so I would never change my mind" or words to that effect.
He, on the other hand says he knows exactly what it would take to change his own mind in the opposite direction...EVIDENCE!

[sandyRoe]

Don't be putting words in our mouths. If such evidence existed I would stop believing. And if there was evidence of a god, I'm sure all here would accept it.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //The term 'Neo-Jacobin' I have just coined//

Unless you're a pretty prolific blogger, others have beaten you to it.

[Khandro]

That's good news naomi, though I have never heard the term before, but it is in use, it rather substantiates the concept. I have though just entered it into an on line dictionary and 'not found' appeared.

[naomi24]

Khandro, Since you assumed you'd coined the term, I'm not entirely sure what 'your' concept of it is. I can't watch the video - it's running too slow. Would you care to spell it out?

[jomifl]

Khandro, a couple of points,
1. I have never declared a personal 'belief' in atheism, I just don't believe in 'god' or 'gods'. What a lot of believers cannot get into their heads because of a lifetime of brainwashing is that it is possible to live without 'belief', try it you might find it a cathartic experience.
2. Communist Russia and nazi Germany were not states based on atheism, they were based on political dogma, power and economic expediency. Their atheism was a convenient way of trying to neutralise the influence of the established church, as they saw it as subversive.
3. I am not a 'militant' atheist. Is this another expression you have coined? perhaps you could explain what it means.
4. What do you mean by the word 'trouble' in the title, do you have trouble with the concept, trouble dealing with the points raised by atheists or does it trouble you that you have gone along with all this religion malarkey to no purpose?

[nescio]

Sandy,
you say if evidence of God's existence was found, you would stop believing ?
You then go on to state that "all here would accept it".

Well, yes - in the face of incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, any rationally-minded person would have no choice but to acknowledge the fact and accept it.
You, however, would instantly revert to non-belief...
You are making no sense whatsoever.

[Quizmonster]

"If such evidence existed I would stop believing." I can hardly believe anyone would write that, Sandy. Are you seriously contending that - if incontrovertible evidence of God's existence was established - you'd become an atheist? Rather extreme contrarianism, surely!
Since you don't appear to like the words you claim I've "put in your mouth", why don't you answer Dawkins' question from your OWN mouth? Here it is again...
"What would it take to change your mind?"

[Quizmonster]

Ah, Nescio, your response was not there when I started typing mine.

[jno]

QM, I think sandyRoe was saying that if evidence of God's NON-existence were to appear he'd stop believing.

[Quizmonster]

J, the evidence I mentioned was clearly a reference to the existence of God...ie evidence that Dawkins would accept. Sandy then referred to (quote) "such evidence", which surely could refer only to the evidence I had spoken of. I'm not sure how it could reasonably be interpreted in any other way, never mind the OPPOSITE way.
But what the hey! As ever, discussing religious faith is just a waste of rational time.

[sandyRoe]

When I wrote: 'If such evidence existed I would stop believing.', I meant if there was proof that God did not exist I wouldn't believe.
I also believe that if some atheists were cast in the role of Doubting Thomas, and shown proof, they'd still harbour lingering doubts.

[LazyGun]

@Khandro - Once again, and for the record - you seemed quite excited to think you had coined the phrase, neo- Jacobin, although I think it was Naomi who pointed out the phrase has been around a while.

What is your explanation, what is your understanding of the term? Really, its a very simple question, and a bit unreasonable of you to just answer the question by telling people to "watch the video".

Please define your terms.

[jno]

sandyRoe's post contained two sentences - as I read it, presenting an opposition: if there was incontrovertible evidence of God's non-existence he would accept it and stop believing; if there was incontrovertible evidence of His existence, atheists would start believing.

Obviously, I could be misunderstnding his intent and will now leave him to speak for himself.

[jno]

... which I see he now has.

[sandyRoe]

Thank you, JNO. I couldn't have put that better myself.

[nescio]

how can the non-existence of God be proved ?

There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.