[QUOTE=only_human;385423]I think it is a decent quote. Another is "there are no atheists in foxholes."[/QUOTE]

That remark is an anathema to atheists, taken in the negative sense.

[QUOTE=davar55;385425]That remark is an anathema to atheists, taken in the negative sense.[/QUOTE]
I am an atheist and I accept that people are wired to make all kinds of pleadings and bargaining when in extremis.

[QUOTE=kladner;385369]I can't express an opinion on the truth of the matter, but someone once told me, "That which you fear is your religion."[/QUOTE]

Re-reading this, it comes to me that I may have misremembered the statement. What if it were:[INDENT]"That which you fear is your god."?
[/INDENT]

I am an atheist too, and that is why I try not to get in the fox holes...(I don't always succeed, but that is a different story).

[QUOTE=only_human;385452]I am an atheist and I accept that people are wired to make all kinds of pleadings and bargaining when in extremis.[/QUOTE]

... perhaps even ultimate denial of their god by the religious.

(As you probably were implying[I].)[/I]

To continue not-being a pedantic atheist, and not having the resources to
net-locate new and funnier material about theo-atheo video-commentary,
which herein I have enjoyed tremendously so please continue,
I'd like to pose another question: how can one disbelieve in atheism
without any evidence or proof that it is wrong?

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I have to say that it seems just as reasonable to ask the inverse:[INDENT]How can one believe in atheism
without any evidence or proof that it is right?[/INDENT]

[QUOTE=kladner;386514]Just to play Devil's Advocate, I have to say that it seems just as reasonable to ask the inverse:[INDENT]How can one believe in atheism
without any evidence or proof that it is right?[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

Just exactly whose advocate are you playing? :)

I think that it is easy to "believe" in atheism with no proof that it is right, since the burden of proof would be on the affirmative case "There is a God" not upon the inverse. This relies upon the weak observational proof system, of course.

It is also possible to deny the co-existence of several types of deities. So, for example, if one type of all-powerful creator god exists it is impossible for another all-powerful creator god to exist. Unless we move into some kind of strange universe where the word creator has no meaning that relates to the 'real.'

In any case, this is why (I believe) Chris always advocates for Agnosticism as being the most logical proposition in these matters. And there's a part of me that agrees.

However, like observational studies, sample size begins to add weight. A study done of a billion farm animals eating a trillion meals of GMO food with no ill effects is a pretty good indication that GMOs are safe. 13-17 billion years of universe moving in predictable ways that show no signs of outside influence, and etc. begins to add weight. I've said before in this thread and elsewhere that the reason I'm an Atheist is that the concept of deity holds exactly zero explanatory power.

What do you mean by "believe in atheism"? :shock:
You either believe in (the existence of) god, or you don't.
You can not believe in the nonexistence of a purple crow.
Show me one. :razz:

[QUOTE=chappy;386516]However, like observational studies, sample size begins to add weight. A study done of a billion farm animals eating a trillion meals of GMO food with no ill effects is a pretty good indication that GMOs are safe. 13-17 billion years of universe moving in predictable ways that show no signs of outside influence, and etc. begins to add weight. I've said before in this thread and elsewhere that the reason I'm an Atheist is that the concept of deity holds exactly zero explanatory power.[/QUOTE]

Could you use a similar argument saying that about 5 billion humans believe in a deity and have never been proved wrong as evidence of a deity's existence? Is that weaker than what you wrote?

I too am playing devil's advocate here, but I subscribe to Chris' view that agnosticism is the only reasonable view (while still leaning heavily towards atheism in my case).

[QUOTE=LaurV;386519]What do you mean by "believe in atheism"? :shock:[/QUOTE]
Isn't a belief that none of the world's religions are correct, and/or a belief that there is no god, a valid belief in itself?
[QUOTE]You either believe in (the existence of) god, or you don't.[/QUOTE]"Don't" here meaning belief in the nonexistence, right? Or alternatively you can be unsure and take a don't-know position, right?
[QUOTE]You can not believe in the nonexistence of a purple crow.
Show me one. :razz:[/QUOTE]Surely we can believe in the nonexistence of a purple crow (but be unable to prove or disprove it) or we can take a don't-know position. New species are found on Earth every year after all. Similarly we can believe in the nonexistence of a Mersenne Prime somewhere between M(10^10) and M(1.001*10^10) on probabilistic grounds, but we are in no position yet to verify that nonexistence or to find a counterexample. Widen that interval somewhat, and mathematicians would definitely take a don't-know position.

[QUOTE=LaurV;386519]You can not believe in the nonexistence of a purple crow.
Show me one. :razz:[/QUOTE]

You could believe that the mechanisms for plumage colouring in corvidae are not such as would allow purple ones; in the same way I would say that I believe reasonably strongly in the nonexistence of green and purple stars.