[002]
RobinZimm
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* If you ask communities of atheists, or prominent atheist intellectuals like RichardDawkins, I think you\'ll find that \
to:
* If you ask communities of atheists, or prominent atheist intellectuals like RichardDawkins, I think you\\\'ll find that \\\"atheism\\\" is taken in the sense described on this page: lack of belief. Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism -- I\\\'ve \\\'\\\'met\\\'\\\' agnostic theists online, and gnostic atheists.
* The fact that a Buddhist would not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m an atheist\\\" is as relevant as the fact that a Christian will not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m a monotheist.\\\" Atheism is a \\\'\\\'class\\\'\\\' of religious belief systems, not a religious belief system.
* Whether the existence of God is a metaphysical question or not doesn\\\'t bother a lot of atheists.
-->People who base their beliefs on evidence generally don\\\'t mind being proven wrong, and will be the first to admit their ignorance, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you make a convincing argument for the universe having a \\\"first cause\\\", an atheist would ask you how you know that that cause was intelligent, that it still exists now, and so on. Declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can\\\'t think of a way to test it...), it disarms you of almost every argument that an atheist would consider relevant.
* If I said, \\\"Either you believe my middle name is Hamilton or you believe it is not Hamilton\\\", would you agree? Of course not! You have no way of knowing if that is my middle name, and until you find out, you are rightly \\\'\\\'unsure.\\\'\\\' The same with the existence of gods.
Edit: Ninja\\\'d -- thanks, @/MajinGojira!
* The fact that a Buddhist would not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m an atheist\\\" is as relevant as the fact that a Christian will not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m a monotheist.\\\" Atheism is a \\\'\\\'class\\\'\\\' of religious belief systems, not a religious belief system.
* Whether the existence of God is a metaphysical question or not doesn\\\'t bother a lot of atheists.
-->People who base their beliefs on evidence generally don\\\'t mind being proven wrong, and will be the first to admit their ignorance, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you make a convincing argument for the universe having a \\\"first cause\\\", an atheist would ask you how you know that that cause was intelligent, that it still exists now, and so on. Declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can\\\'t think of a way to test it...), it disarms you of almost every argument that an atheist would consider relevant.
* If I said, \\\"Either you believe my middle name is Hamilton or you believe it is not Hamilton\\\", would you agree? Of course not! You have no way of knowing if that is my middle name, and until you find out, you are rightly \\\'\\\'unsure.\\\'\\\' The same with the existence of gods.
Edit: Ninja\\\'d -- thanks, @/MajinGojira!
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* If you ask communities of atheists, or prominent atheist intellectuals like RichardDawkins, I think you\'ll find that \
to:
* If you ask communities of atheists, or prominent atheist intellectuals like RichardDawkins, I think you\\\'ll find that \\\"atheism\\\" is taken in the sense described on this page: lack of belief. Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism -- I\\\'ve \\\'\\\'met\\\'\\\' agnostic theists online, and gnostic atheists.
* The fact that a Buddhist would not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m an atheist\\\" is as relevant as the fact that a Christian will not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m a monotheist.\\\" Atheism is a \\\'\\\'class\\\'\\\' of religious belief systems, not a religious belief system.
* Whether the existence of God is a metaphysical question or not doesn\\\'t bother a lot of atheists.
-->People who base their beliefs on evidence generally don\\\'t mind being proven wrong, and will be the first to admit their ignorance, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you make a convincing argument for the universe having a \\\"first cause\\\", an atheist would ask you how you know that that cause was intelligent, that it still exists now, and so on. Declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can\\\'t think of a way to test it...), it disarms you of almost every argument that an atheist would consider relevant.
* If I said, \\\"Either you believe my middle name is Hamilton or you believe it is not Hamilton\\\", would you agree? Of course not! You have no way of knowing if that is my middle name, and until you find out, you are rightly \\\'\\\'unsure.\\\'\\\' The same with the existence of gods.
* The fact that a Buddhist would not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m an atheist\\\" is as relevant as the fact that a Christian will not say, \\\"Hi, I\\\'m a monotheist.\\\" Atheism is a \\\'\\\'class\\\'\\\' of religious belief systems, not a religious belief system.
* Whether the existence of God is a metaphysical question or not doesn\\\'t bother a lot of atheists.
-->People who base their beliefs on evidence generally don\\\'t mind being proven wrong, and will be the first to admit their ignorance, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you make a convincing argument for the universe having a \\\"first cause\\\", an atheist would ask you how you know that that cause was intelligent, that it still exists now, and so on. Declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can\\\'t think of a way to test it...), it disarms you of almost every argument that an atheist would consider relevant.
* If I said, \\\"Either you believe my middle name is Hamilton or you believe it is not Hamilton\\\", would you agree? Of course not! You have no way of knowing if that is my middle name, and until you find out, you are rightly \\\'\\\'unsure.\\\'\\\' The same with the existence of gods.
