The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_stemelbow]

Michael Shermer on atheism:

"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling. If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it. The funny thing in all of this, or mixed up thing if you prefer, is that atheists typically don't believe because they find the notion of belief untenable. Belief in God is untenable therefore I see no reason to believe but the mistake is to make a claim of one's own--that there is no God. As Shermer suggests one cannot disprove the existence of God just as one can't prove such existence. The position of atheism is untenable, but the atheist typically surrenders to that position because he/she finds belief untenable. What a weird position to find oneself in, I'd say. The out for believers is the reason for belief is in faith (meaning the experiences they consider spiritual provide reason to believe), but for atheists they are stuck having to rely on verifyable scientific methods and reasoning to prove his/her position, which is impossible to do. So what we're left with is two untenable positions, one, ultimately with an out, the other filled with hypocrisy, it seems.

This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here regarding LDS folks and LDS defenders. The complaint here is that the LDS defender is merely critiquing a critique of an LDS position, and therefore the LDS defender isn’t supporting his/her position—the positive claims of the Church. And yet, the original critique offered of LDS belief is untenable, as reasoned by the LDS defender. The critics position is untenable, while claiming LDS belief can’t be right because its untenable.

There ya are folks—the very problem you guys have created and have been unwilling and/or unwilling to see or accept.

[_Some Schmo]

There ya are folks—the very problem you guys have created and have been unwilling and/or unwilling to see or accept.

No, the problem we have is with dumb asses who read the same things about atheism over and over and still don't understand it, yet can't help but criticize it anyway.

[_LDSToronto]

Stem,

Would you please shut the “F” up about the whining that you witness. Point taken in the previous 10 billion damned posts you've made about the same goddamned thing.

H.

[_stemelbow]

No, the problem we have is with dumb asses who read the same things about atheism over and over and still don't understand it, yet can't help but criticize it anyway.

Oh Schmoe. What an adorable response...truly. YOu missed the point of the OP and yet whimper about another's missing something (and your whimpering is merely whimpering since you are unable to show how anyone has missed anything other than you). Go back and re-read the OP, please.

[_DarkHelmet]

That's why I'm agnostic. The question of whether or not there is a supreme intellectual being, or beings, controlling the universe is beyond our knowledge. However, I am sympathetic to the atheist position because all the religions that have been invented so far are stupid. Atheism is simply a rejection of all the current religious theories. If you think about it, out of all the thousands of religious beliefs, you believe only one and reject the other several thousand. Atheists just take it one step further and reject your religion as well. You are closer to an atheist than you think.

[_Molok]

I'm still searching for the eponymous joint Stem was referring to.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

Would you please shut the f*** up about the whining that you witness. Point taken in the previous 10 billion f*****g posts you've made about the same goddamned thing.

H.

LOL. You made me chuckle at least--whether serious or not I can't tell.

[_Molok]

Stem,

Would you please shut the f*** up about the whining that you witness. Point taken in the previous 10 billion f*****g posts you've made about the same goddamned thing.

H.

LOL. You made me chuckle at least--whether serious or not I can't tell.

It was serious. Will you shut the “F” up now?

[_stemelbow]

That's why I'm agnostic.

You and Shermer both. But, ironically, you still find yourself in the "critic" camp claiming the Church is not true, rather than a more agnostic position of "the Church could be true but I personally doubt it", or so it seems.

The question of whether or not there is a supreme intellectual being, or beings, controlling the universe is beyond our knowledge. However, I am sympathetic to the atheist position because all the religions that have been invented so far are stupid. Atheism is simply a rejection of all the current religious theories. If you think about it, out of all the thousands of religious beliefs, you believe only one and reject the other several thousand. Atheists just take it one step further and reject your religion as well. You are closer to an atheist than you think.

I'm sure you sympathy is appreciated.

[_Some Schmo]

No, the problem we have is with dumb asses who read the same things about atheism over and over and still don't understand it, yet can't help but criticize it anyway.

Oh Schmoe. What an adorable response...truly. YOu missed the point of the OP and yet whimper about another's missing something (and your whimpering is merely whimpering since you are unable to show how anyone has missed anything other than you). Go back and re-read the OP, please.

Oh stem, what an adorably predictable spouting of the same nonsense you've been whining with for the last few thousand posts or so.

I don't need to show anything. People with a brain and the ability to actually comprehend what they read (a skill you clearly lack) can see you haven't a clue what you're talking about (yet again). Proving it would be redundant.