Do religious people have a right to push their faith at others?

[Pliny]

...there is no requirement of faith for non belief.

If you have proved the non-belief to yourself through independent effort - yes. If you have accepted someone elses claim of non-belief - no. Your faith is in the originator of the idea. Most atheists interpret science's inability to qualify or quantify god as an absence of god. I agree with Wilbur that science doesn't really say there is no god - although many scientists may, science can't really say it without leaving the scientific realm - essentially being unscientific. Atheists just have faith in those scientists who unscientifically make the claim that god does not exist. We may come to know that and we may never know that but science can currently make no determination. I do not like this misuse of science to forward a belief, which in this case is erroneously termed a "non-belief".

[Oleg Bach]

A person in a wretched body like the scientist Steven Hawkings is more likely to deny the existance of God...than a youthful and healthy counter part. Atheism is based on one premise and one statement. "why does God let bad things happen to good people" - This is because the atheists looks upon God as some sort of super human entity....a mystical and invisiable human being of sorts. Where in my mind God has no voice - has no body - exists and does not exist at the same time...cares and does not care.....and for the most part it is about the human perception of power. God has absolutely no power and has power at the same time...kind like some black and white matter that does not matter but it does...If you wish it so.

[M.Dancer]

If you have proved the non-belief to yourself through independent effort - yes.

Why would I need to prove non belief? Non belief is not an assertion.

Most atheists interpret science's inability to qualify or quantify god as an absence of god.

I have no idea about what most atheists base their non belief on.

I agree with Wilbur that science doesn't really say there is no god -

So do I. Science doesn't usually go about trying to prove or disprove the unprovable.

[dre]

No scientist would claim that something doesn't exist just because he hasn't found it.

How do you go about proving something doesn't exist.

You cant do that in an absolute way. But you can look at the evidence and determine reasonable doubt. In the case of human religions the evidence doesnt look good. You have a race of people so pre-occupied with god that they have worshipped just about everything. So the people making the claim here have no credibility. Human religion is a well understood phenomenon and it has nothing to do with any diety.

Picture an insane guy claiming that he talks to a flying pink zebra. You cant "PROVE" he didnt, but theres no need to prove that in order to have a reasonable belief that his claim is not real. No act of faith is required. In fact theres no real reason to even consider his claim or try to disprove it unless theres some evidence to support it.

Or picture a pathological liar on the witness stand claiming hes been abducted by aliens. Again no leap of faith required to make a reasonable assumption that its not true.

This is called rational thought and reason. Can it be wrong? Sure! And maybe well discover one day that a being or race more advanced than us DID have a hand in our creation. But in the mean time no "faith" is required to dismiss outrageous claims with zero supporting evidence.

[Wilber]

I was called an atheist by a young person because I was not up on formal religion. Even though I believe in God...he still insisted that I was an atheist. Could it be that the new definition might be someone who is not dogmatic or religious?

I know plenty of religious people who are not dogmatic or if they are, they don't express it around me. I think those that do are a small minority.

[Oleg Bach]

As a person that does believe in God - I don't care if someone else does not. I do quietly percieve them as inferours though ,for not having the intellectual capacity to figure out that the probabity of the existance of God is more than not.

[Wilber]

You cant do that in an absolute way. But you can look at the evidence and determine reasonable doubt. In the case of human religions the evidence doesn't look good. You have a race of people so pre-occupied with god that they have worshipped just about everything. So the people making the claim here have no credibility. Human religion is a well understood phenomenon and it has nothing to do with any diety.

Picture an insane guy claiming that he talks to a flying pink zebra. You cant "PROVE" he didnt, but theres no need to prove that in order to have a reasonable belief that his claim is not real. No act of faith is required. In fact theres no real reason to even consider his claim or try to disprove it unless theres some evidence to support it.

Or picture a pathological liar on the witness stand claiming hes been abducted by aliens. Again no leap of faith required to make a reasonable assumption that its not true.

This is called rational thought and reason. Can it be wrong? Sure! And maybe well discover one day that a being or race more advanced than us DID have a hand in our creation. But in the mean time no "faith" is required to dismiss outrageous claims with zero supporting evidence.

What constitutes and outrageous claim is in the eye of the beholder. Many things we now consider as truths were outrageous claims at one time. I would consider myself a non believer but I don't automatically assume that just because I don't, makes all the beliefs of those that do outrageous.

Bottom line. In our society, you are allowed to believe what you wish. There is no more burden of proof required on religious people than there is on non believers.

[GostHacked]

Both are the same. The hard core believer will have moments of doubt. The atheist will also ponder momentarily and think "maybe I am wrong?"

More atheists are open to the possibility that god does exist, not many religious will even entertain the idea that there is a possibility that god does NOT exist.

[dre]

Most atheists interpret science's inability to qualify or quantify god as an absence of god.

Not me anyhow. I look at it the exact same way as I look at my pink zebra example. You have a seemingly implausible claim with zero supporting evidence made by people (the human race) with no credibility and a history of making up bogus claims.

Absolute belief isnt what matters. All humans can do is make reasonable assessments based on the evidence and nature of claims, and keep an open mind to the possibility that they might be wrong regardless of how slim that possibility is.

But again... theres no real reason to even have this conversation about wild unsubstantiated claim with no supporting evidence. Beliefs based on reason need not be pitted against beliefs based on faith. Theres no reason for science to prove there isnt a god, or to even consider the claim.

Edited June 22, 2011 by dre

[Pliny]

I believe that is either outdated or an urban legend.

Welll.....

A commom law perception?

The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position. [5] However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense.

There are catches however...such like it is the onus of the defence to prove the defendant is insane...

But again, there it is: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

[Pliny]

Theres no reason for science to prove there isnt a god, or to even consider the claim.

They'll keep there eyes open though.

[scouterjim]

Does the opposite hold true? Do you also believe that people who aren't religious should not push those beliefs at others? I ask because it seems as if those who don't believe in God feel as if they can say anything they want - stating their views as fact; even going so far as to declare that people who do believe in God shouldn't be able to teach their children about religion - that it's a form of abuse to do so.

So I'm curious if it's just wrong when the religious "push [their] beliefs on others" - or if it applies to everyone.

I believe atheists should keep their beliefs to themselves as well.

[eyeball]

Indoctrination, especially that of children, takes place in many forms.

Which is why a secular society's education system should above all else provide a solid foundation for critical thinking and the sooner the better.

[eyeball]

I agree, an atheist does need no proof to believe, that is why his belief is a matter of faith as well.

I tend toward the belief that there is no god in the religious sense, I just don't claim that my belief is fact. Athiests do and in that respect they are they are the same as religions. Many of them don't like to hear that but it is true.

That's just not the case. Faith is a conscious act of will, the suspension of one's disbelief. Atheism is entirely passive or inactive in that sense.

It is a requirement of a non believer to provide proof if he claims his belief is the truth.

Added: As much as it is any religion.

Atheists don't have beliefs all they've done is to maintain their disbelief. Beliefs OTOH do have the believer, often in a very powerful grip.

Edited June 22, 2011 by eyeball

[Shady]

A little off topic and I apologize, but the gov already listens in on your cell phone and internet conversations. It's not much of a secret to me anyways.

Accepting your premise as true, even though I think the government has little interest in listening in on my cell phone call. What exactly are you saying? You're ok with extending their reach even farther? You're ok with the government deciding what parents can discuss with their children? What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Shady]

I believe atheists should keep their beliefs to themselves as well.

What other beliefs should people keep to themselves? Economic beliefs? Environmental beliefs? Philosophical beliefs? How much freedom of speech are you looking to erode?

[cybercoma]

Athiesm has to be taken on faith as well. It is also a belief that can't be proved. I tend toward it based on my own logic which is based on my own experience, but that doesn't prove anything.

Who said anything about Atheism?

[cybercoma]

So now were going to get the state involved in what parents can discuss with their children? Seriously? Are you gonna put secret microphones in peoples homes?

Many of you are clearly insane.

I never claimed my beliefs were practical.

[cybercoma]

It is a requirement of a non believer to provide proof if he claims his belief is the truth.

Added: As much as it is any religion.

This is patently absurd. It has already been explained to you twice why this isn't the case. You don't need proof to not believe in santa claus, a refrigerator sized diamond buried in my backyard or the flying spaghetti monster. Not believing is the default stance. You don't automatically believe everything people say to you (well, maybe you do if you're a complete moron) then gather evidence for reasons not to believe. If someone tells you something completely unrealistic, like... oh... I dunno... that there's a teapot in space that orbits the sun, you would automatically disbelieve them and ask for evidence of this teapot. When they couldn't provide evidence you would thus continue your disbelief or reservations about this absurdity. However, when it comes to religion, this type of nonsense is taught to children before they're of an age where they can reason and it becomes accepted in society as a fact. Then when someone asks for evidence of these seemingly absurd facts, people say, "well look how many people believe it. It must be true!" It's not and people rightfully, without the need for evidence, will continue to believe it's not true until convincing evidence arises. It has been centuries. We're still waiting.

[cybercoma]

No scientist would claim that something doesn't exist just because he hasn't found it.

Which is why Richard Dawkins doesn't enter into debates about the existence of God. It's pointless. His stance, and the stance of most intelligent atheists who believe it's very highly improbable that there is a God, is that he doesn't believe God exists, but welcomes any evidence to the contrary. What you're implying, and it just simply isn't true, is that if there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of God, there is an equal probability that God does or does not exist. This is wrong. Since there has not been a single piece of evidence to prove the existence of God or that there is any sort of intercessory power that can be prayed to, it seems much more likely that God does not exist. So likely that atheists feel safe to say that there is not God, but what they mean is that it's very highly improbable that there is a God.

[Shady]

I never claimed my beliefs were practical.

Not practical, and not constitutional. Thankfully!

Definitely do-able in North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and possibly China though.

[Shady]

His stance, and the stance of most intelligent atheists

I don't find Dawkins particularly intelligent. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as somebody like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is an intellect. Dawkins is far from it.

[Sir Bandelot]

It is a fundamental given in debate that those who make the positive claim provide the proof...it is not a requirement of the non-believer to disprove. This is why the prosecution has the onus to prove their claim, not the defence to prove otherwise.

An atheist needs no proof to not believe..although reason not to believe may be many or few, it is irrelevant to their non belief.

It is never a problem for nay-sayers to simply say "No", and their job is done.

On the other hand, try convincing a man born without a nose that such a thing as "smell" even exists...

[Sir Bandelot]

Which is why a secular society's education system should above all else provide a solid foundation for critical thinking and the sooner the better.

The same ones who teach us that capitalism, democracy, equality are all good and always good?

[GostHacked]

Accepting your premise as true, even though I think the government has little interest in listening in on my cell phone call. What exactly are you saying? You're ok with extending their reach even farther? You're ok with the government deciding what parents can discuss with their children? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Again, it's off topic, so I'll say this line and leave it at that.

Actually, if you payed attention to any of my posts, I am against the government snooping in on our conversations without warrant or reason. No I am not ok with government telling parents what to do. Hope that clarifies things for you.