Is Atheism a logical belief?

FALSE!
More BS
You use and demand inappropriate language with contrived meanings that you dreamed up in your imagination, and have several times tried (and failed) to logically explain it, but still fail in grammar.
You joined the grammar war and now you are doing your best to pretend you have no accountability for the nonsense you posted!

Well it does not work that way, its all here, everything you said, on this board in black ink on white

 

Yes. And fallacy of equivocation is when you confuse one definition of a word for another in the same sentence or argument. You do this when you pretend people use your preferred definition when they are clear they do not, and when you pretend they mean what they don't.

 

Prosecution rests!

 

Ok Koko. Will put you back on ignore then. You have nothing to offer but your bravado, no matter how much I attempt to engage you in actual good faith conversation.

 

I see some of that too. The current VP was picked explicitly for her gender, and I bet also for her race. She certainly isn't making the party look good, with amazingly low approval numbers.

Similarly, here in Ontario, the Liberal Party announced it will only consider women for nominations in some ridings, which of course is completely and blatantly sexist.

Sexism and racism against the majority sex and race being promoted by those who pretend to oppose sexism and racism only shows they aren't genuine.

 

Well, yes! The definition of atheism involves there being no god.

Then, you decided to throw in the hate you tend to add to everything you talk about - as if everyone else takes part in that.

Does that hate of yours come from your religion? Or, is that just you?

 

One method of addressing sexism is to take overt action to move women into positions where they have a chance to participate.

The fact of the matter is that men are far less likely to even recognize the issues of sexism, let alone take strong steps to address this serious problem.

Moving qualified women into positions where they can work on this problem is highly logical.

The same goes for racism. As long as government is whites only, the chance that those whites will make moves against racism, or even understand the issue, are remote indeed.

It's good to see that leaders in your country are willing to take steps to fight sexism and racism.

 

All of this discussion and the question posed by the.OP has yet to be addressed; interesting.

 

I think parts have been answered.

I would add that in order to have a logical answer concerning the ultimate beginning of this universe humans would require information that we absolutely do not have.

So, using creation stories as a basis for deciding whether atheism or theism is "more logical" doesn't make sense.

And, that's true for theism and atheism in general, not just the Christian version.

 

Its perfectly legitimate however to prove atheism is bunk, since atheism is grounded in the natural, and its no ones problem but the atheist if he cant prove his belief that GOd does not exist.

 

What do you think has not been addressed and should have been addressed?

 

FINALLY!

Yep you even fell out of favor with your groupies when you started posting that over the top nonsense. Im sure people will be happy to see you leave logic/reason/philosophy to those more inclined to be rational, who do not post nonstop redd herrings, misrepresentations, claims of distinction you failed to even try to support much less explain, doubling down on nothing more than your opinion with more of your opinion, then the incessant nonstop doubling down repetition of those same unsupported and debunked opinions over and ****ing over, your refusal to accept proven academically accepted definitions, constant projection, falsifying my rebuttals, and a host of other really nice guy posts that looks a hell of a lot closer to someone who is trolling the thread than a "good faith" debate.
then you paint all that foolishness and nonsense "good faith"?????
Im sure plenty of people are gagging on that one right now.

Thanks! Your concession is appreciated.

 

Participating in, encouraging, and in these cases even mandating sexism and/or racism is not fighting sexism and/or racism.

 

First of all, there is no possible way to prove ANYTHING about god.

And, that certainly includes whether a god or gods exists or does not exist.

So, no, you can not prove that atheism is "bunk".

 

Having a political party say they are going to restrict themselves to supporting candidates who are from minorities is certainly not a mandate.

Nobody has to vote for that party or any of its candidates. Is Ontario not a parliamentary form of government? In that case, you should be even more aware of this.

Beyond that, continuing to maintain government as single sex and single race is absolutely what one does when one is a racist or is sexist.

It's good to see political effort being put forward to end that racism and sexism.

 

True. But it shows the party is acting with sexism.

Also true. And women should not be banned from nominations in the party. Nor should men. Gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc, should not be a selection criteria.

 

sure you can.
neoatheists, to be factual in their beliefs as they proselytize have to remain grounded in the natural and anything not factual (ie provable) is purely based in 'faith'. Presto up pops that evil religion word! LOL The fact they have no justification for their hypocritical beliefs which you just agreed cannot be proven to be factual, is solely their problem.

 

It seems agnostics can be bigots as well....See my/your post in Race Relations.

It has been answered/discussed somewhere back there before Kookoomojo entered the scene.

 

I see plenty of proof the repub party is racist against blacks.

 

They are acting against sexism. The current situation is sexist. They are working to change that.

The existing selection system IS the problem. And, the "old white men" version of "democracy" has a LONG record of wanting it to stay that way.

The objective is to change that by having leadership that is aware of the problem and, hopefully, not part of the problem. It also allows room for women and minorities to have positions where the public can see the value of ending discrimination.

In the US congress (House and Senate) only 14% of Republican members are female. And, the Democratic party is doing better than that, but that's pretty faint praise given how low the bar is.

That's especially significant as many of the issues of today are issues that disproportionately affect women in our culture. That is, issues considered "women's issues" are being decided by old white men.

 

There are no celestial Gods of any kind in this universe. There is a lot of smart beings capable of doing all kinds of amazing things. Humans are an example. Some modern humans would have been considered Gods to ancient people because of the things they can do. Even you might make the grade.

From a practical matter, the distance between solar systems is too great for interstellar travel so, even if there are billions of assorted intelligent beings in the universe, they will always be alone. No space aliens from another solar system have every visited the Earth at any time. No space aliens from another solar system will ever visit the Earth. Humans will never visit another solar system.

 

Atheism does not require faith.

Failing to accept the claim that there are gods does not imply faith.

Beyond that, religion requires more than just faith.

 

Agreed.

I would say, though, that it is possible that Earth could send a robotic probe to a different solar system. Of course, it would probably take a million years or more and would have great difficulty in getting us a message of what it found.

We have at least two satellites that have been purposefully sent outside the reach of the gravity of our sun. While they are not directed to some other solar system, they could reach that end in a very long time.

Given that we have 500B years left on Earth, we might do something clever with robots - like make satellites that are robot factories that can search for resources in space and build duplicates to send different directions. The result could be a geometrically growing fleet.

 

And pushing sexism in doing so.

It is simple prejudice to equate being aware of the problem to being a particular race or gender. Black people can be racist, even against black people, and white people can be not-racist. Saying otherwise is racism.

Women can be encouraged to run, but forcing them to would be wrong, as is banning men from running in these ridings. Doing so is participating in sexism, which you purport to oppose.

So what? Would you ban women from being judges or having opinions about issues that disproportionately affect men? Should the women on your supreme court recuse themselves if a case comes up about the draft? Should their opinions be given lesser weight if a case about suicide or dangerous work comes up? I think that would be rightly seen as sexist.

Anyway, this is a derail from the thread topic so I will stop responding to it here.

 

It could be feasible to send self-repairing robots on an interstellar mission but such a trip would be impossible for humans. And, as you mentioned time is a major factor. So, even if such a trip was launched, human civilization would be long dead before the vessel arrived at its destination and there would be no way to establish communication between Points A & B.

IMO, the first priority should be to verify how many planets there are in this solar system.