The world is relatively stupid and does not do enough thinking.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a quote from world renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan. It means that just because we have no proof that something exists, it does not mean that said thing does not objectively exist. Many things objectively exist that we are currently oblivious to.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence is not an argument for or against God, it cautions us not to jump to a conclusion based upon incomplete evidence. In my opinion an objective person would understand the scientific value in that.

Moot point as I am not a member of any religion.

 

It is illogical by my measure of logic to place your words in my mouth and call them my own. The above in no way represents my actual views. As for bias, it is you that is biased as the above inaccurate assumption of my belief reveals.

 

Thank you for the lesson, however that quote still does not answer the questions about misinterpretation. For example I could define God is the big bang but that would not make it true, I could also define God as Jesus's Dad, but that would also not make it true, I could define God as Allah, that would also not make it true.

Objectively there is a ''God'' but also objectively the interpretation of ''God'' can only be one and unknown. God can not be Allah or the Christian God, or a Jewish God, or anything like that is interpreted as God, God can only ever be an unknown. Anything more than unknown is subjective.

 

There is no mystery that religions hate other religions, there was plenty of wars throughout history to justify my correctness in thinking. So if you are not biased in religion , you would accept a Muslim president?

 

Nor does it make it untrue. Why jump to a factual conclusion to the positive or negative based upon incomplete evidence if other than a bias for or against God? I make no claim of fact when I speak of God thus my use of the word belief. My belief is based upon the the view that the narrative that relies upon the fewest assumptions is that a power greater than I created me and the universe, but Occam's Razor is not a measure of absolutes, but a best guesstimate. If it is ever proven for a fact that God does not exist I will immediately abandon my belief, but in the mean time as I do not argue God as a fact, nor do I try to convert others to my view, and as my view harms no one, I am OK with believing that God exists.

As for bias, my belief does not bias me as I am a Deist and believe that God gave me a brain to use and he/she/it expects me to use it to figure things out for myself, and the way I figure things out is through the use of objectivity and science. As a Deist knowledge is my religion and text books are my Bible. We Deists are the antithesis of religion as we reject all religious dogma.

The objective do not come to a factual conclusion based upon incomplete evidence... the biased do.

 

Not sure what the above has to do with anything that I have said as I have not made any comments on war or hate.

I am OK with theists or atheists being president so long as they swear to be guided by the Constitution and science rather than their personal belief system... not that any president has done so as of yet. I would like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be president!

 

Get rid of religion and everything will sort itself out.

 

Liberals govern on "feel" instead of thinking. Thats why we have cities long governed by democrats that are hell holes for crime, and are bankrupt. Chicago is a great example of governing by feel rather than thinking.

 

SO WHAT YOU POST AS A QUESTION ABOUT LOGIC AND THE LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING TURNS INTO A RELIGIOUS RANT SHOWING THAT YOU DON'T THINK AT ALL, EXCEPT FOR THE THINGS YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. THAT IS THE VERY PROBLEM YOU START OUT WITH AS YOUR PREMISE- AND IT TURNS OUT YOU ARE ALSO THE LIVING EXAMPLE OF THE LIMITATION- SELF-IMPOSED BY CLOSED MINDS THAT CAN'T ACCEPT ANSWERS THAT REQUIRE THEM TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY THINK..

 

How completely wrong, there is no rant , only logical basis. I always think critical and do not have any beliefs. Quite clearly by your capital letters in some way you hope your post in some way stands out, however your post is constructed in the aim of trying to insult and does not discuss the topic at hand.

Answer this:

An atheist walks into a bar, in the corner there sits a christian, a muslim and a jew who are arguing over ''god''.

The atheist asks the Christian, how many Gods are they?

The atheist asks the Muslim, how many Gods are they?

The atheist asks the Jew, how many Gods are they?

On receiving the answers the atheist walks away shaking in his head in disbelief of their stupidity of their argument. They all agreed there is one God.

Try thinking before you comment or I must conclude you fall under the topic title.

 

Yes it will.

 

The problem with humanity is that it isn't omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, therefore perfection is beyond us. We know more than we ever did but wisdom remains a quantity in short supply. Often time the facts are not in dispute but how those facts fit together and their implications almost certainly are because we don't have all the facts and very likely never will.

 

It seems as though you believe that being an atheist frees you from bias, yet you freely demonstrate a bias towards those possessing a metaphysical belief system in the very same post.

 

I do not believe that perfection is beyond us, I just think that somebody needs to shine a light on all the interpretation errors in the world. Ambiguity is something we could remove from the world by promoting clear understandings.

 

I am not biased to beliefs, I am biased towards facts, facts that show why beliefs are taken out of context and the interpretation world wide of religion and ''God'' really ''sucks''.
I am free from bias because I can be convinced otherwise if the evidence presented is factual.

 

Before I proceed, I'm going to need you to define your atheism. What does it mean for you - to you - to be an atheist?

 

To me it means to be objective and not let my own subjective over rule my own objective logic. To always try to remain impartial and find the rudiment of axiom that tells the truth .

 

So now you want one piece of the world? Buy a home.

Regarding the remainder of your post, keep in mind that half the world is populated by people whose IQ is below 100.

 

How do you define 'atheist'?

 

Typo, I was tired , you are correct it should be peace.

Indeed half the world has a low IQ, however even the most stupid person in the world can understand simple axioms.

I want world peace.

 

You seem to value IQ.

How do you reconcile the importance of that metric when you encounter someone who possesses a very high IQ, but nearly always disagrees with you?

 

Do you believe that such a thing is more possible when intermingling disparate ideologies, or separating them by borders?

 

A person(s) that only ''believe'' in an objective reality.

added- I put believe because I could not think of a word that describes knowing.

A person(s) that only knows an objective reality.

 

I do not believe things to begin with, based on logical premise and axiom values, intermingling religions to one religion will in my opinion have affect, change is equal to change. Unless the division of borders are removed there will always be different subjective opinion and interpretation of a God. If there is one interpretation based on logic and fact there can be no argument over ''God''.

 

That's an assumption based on nothing, really.

Psychology. People of all IQs are shaped by their experiences and they develop psychologically around those experiences.

And you?