I used to be quite active in church because I believed their goals and actions worthwhile. I left when I realized that the cynical argument is flawed: If someone does the right thing for the wrong reason today, they can just was well do the wrong thing for the same reason tomorrow.

True enough, inge. I’ve been pretty tolerant all my life, and not insisted on bursting anyone’s bubble about the God thing unless they asked me what I believed.

I’m still not sure it’s my place to go out and DO what Rob’s accused everyone of doing (outright calling the believers “stupid”). But I’m starting to agree with many of you about quiet polite disagreement adding to the problem.

Because otherwise we’d, you know, die. And I don’t want to die.

The difference being that one is purely a reaction to an extrinsic stimulus (tryptophan being used to manufacture serotonin, mostly), and the other is the result of a large amount of both intrinsic and extrinsic interactions involving a large amount of both psychology and brain chemistry. And the two are not, in fact, chemically similar, except that increased serotonin levels is a side effect.

You keep using the word “proof”, and I have to tell you, I do not think that word means what you think it means. In science, you do not prove, you test and validate. That which is untestable is bubkis to science.

Try these out:

“Call me an optimist, but I can’t believe that everyone who’s ever advocated the imbalance of humours as a cause of disease is wrong.”

“…I can’t believe that everyone who’s ever advocated the biblical creation story is wrong.”

“…I can’t believe that everyone who’s ever advocated slavery is wrong.”

“…I can’t believe that everyone who’s ever advocated mental health treatment for homosexuality is wrong.”

“…I can’t believe that everyone who’s ever advocated FGM is wrong.”

Etc., etc., etc…

The onus is on you to prove the existence. If you choose not to engage, don’t expect to be taken seriously.

Similarly, according to all physical and empirical evidence, love=eating a bunch of chocolate.

A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. Someone needs to stay away from science.

but there has to be more! why? there just has to!

I guess we should give in and admit the world is flat, since that’s what the majority of the world’s people have believed. And we might as well give in and admit that illness is caused by bad spirits….

blah blah blah…that’s not optimism. It’s silliness.

I find theists’ lack of respect for the physical disturbing.

The evidence for the existence of gods, UFOs, astrological influences and the like has always been extremely weak. Just because there’s no evidence for something doesn’t mean people won’t believe it.

So it is much more useful to reason that people should stop doing things that hurt themselves and others than try to prove that there is no tea pot orbiting Earth.

Similarly, according to all physical and empirical evidence, love=eating a bunch of chocolate. Anyone who’s been in it though knows that it’s significantly different, that it’s elusive, and that it’s real. I can’t prove to anyone that I love my husband or that he loves me, but it’s there. Are we simply deluded, or is there more to people than firing neurons and chemical reactions?

The thing about the “lack of proof” aspect of atheism is that it assumes that there is nothing more to life or human existence than the physical, and that directly contradicts pretty much everyone’s experience ever. Sure you can say we’re all deluded, but what’s more likely? That everyone ever lived is crazy, or that we’re not?