I think that this is true, but that it's also not related to the root of why atheists take a lot of heat. Atheism as a principle may not explicitly prevent people from changing their minds, as religious doctrine may, but it is at its core the limited view that there is nothing of a higher order than science. The acceptance or support of anything else puts it into the realm of agnosticism, does it not?

I think that most negativity surrounding atheism is a product, not of the belief, but of the vocal minority which plays fast and loose with its opinions.

I'm just grateful I live in the UK where this is a complete non-issue. I think of my religion (totally agnostic at the moment although I do have a few Buddhist wristbands) as a completely personal thing that's nobody else's business - the culture I live in allows me that freedom and it's one of the things I'm most grateful for.

It's been said a million times but part of the negative stigma definitely comes from people just being rude about their beliefs/lack thereof.

To me, unless I'm understanding it wrong, atheism seems a little closed minded. I'd be utterly shocked if any religion has ever gotten anything right about the afterlife or whatever but that doesn't mean their couldn't be an afterlife or supernatural being(s) outside of what's been described by human beings. I mean, even we can alter and almost create non-human life from scratch. For that reason I describe myself as agnostic, with extreme doubts about religion.

^ there are a few main types of things I'm definitely closed minded about. I am not open to the idea that the world < 10,000 years old, that is a non-negotiable. Less provable is the idea that some deity is going to punish you for not adhering to some scripted doctrine, but I refuse to believe that as well. That seems so obviously a sales pitch by humans.

Oh no, I totally agree. I'm just saying that completely writing off the idea of their being more to life than is understood by science because most ideas about what else might be out there are completely inane is, well, also inane.

I think anyone who claims to understand all of existence, with mankind as a species basically still being in childhood with limited understanding and ability, is a cocksucker. Zealots of any kind are stupid and annoying.

Atheism isn't taking itself to have evidence of the nonexistence of god.

It is about saying that in the complete and total absence of any kind of genuine evidence of god, it makes rational sense to assume the nonexistence of god.

Put more succinctly by logic professor Irving Copi - "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."


Religion, makes the direct claim that not just "something" but a specific, defined something, with defined properties and identifiable characteristics of which we are already aware, DOES exist, and that that thing is responsible for literally the entirety of the universe. That's a very much more bold claim than can be taken under the axiom "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - That position wouldn't apply to something so vast and completely self-evident that it could create the universe.


As a result, we're left with the burden of proof - Many Atheists, myself included, take the position that to prove the nonexistence of something like god would require, in itself, god-like or even god-exceeding, knowledge of the entire universe, sufficient to be able to say without room for error, that god was not present within it.

That's a much bigger task than a religious person making a bold claim, then being asked before we treat this claim credulously, that he provide valid evidence to back that claim up.



To use an analogy - if I am told that a glass jar contains a liquid indistinguishable from air, by virtue of having the same refractive index and colour, then I cannot be sure of this statement. Air is far more likely to be in there than some obscure chemical creation, so I will probably take the position that this is poppycock unless the person making the claim can show me evidence of this liquid. This would be easily done by that person say, wetting a tissue with that liquid. Being possessed of evidence, then I could logically change my position and be at no fault.

The problem with the argument for god, is that this evidence seems to be impossible to provide. So until this evidence is provided, I will take the position that the observed universe, having yet to provide any evidence of god, probably does not contain one.

Science is our best possible understanding of the world from a given point in time, but it's also important to remember that there was a time when science, valid science, told us the world was flat. I love science. I'm dedicating my life in part to science, but science is a process, not an end. Science knows it doesn't know everything, or it'd stop.

To me, there's no point in making a decision about something science can't address, which is why I'm agnostic.

I put it in italics the first time around...

I will say that I do have a complete disbelief in doctrine as prescribed by organized religion. I am by no means advocating an organization's perspective. I'm open to the idea that we don't know everything about our world, but I'm quite closed to religion as written by man and unproven by science. As I see it, the Bible is basically history's longest game of telephone.