Actually religion, of any stripe, can, and often does, makes someone a bad, even evil, person.

Can I get an amen?

Funny that, me too! By Christian friends, or rather they were!!

Never happened to me! Lol

Yeah, like the guy who wrote the article.

Perhaps being a true liberal demands more of an intellectual effort ...

well, people believe in all kinds of absurdities depending on their experiences. But no smartty person could follow for example HELLLLLary or Bernie or the babbles of that medieval criminal. I find smrfgt people claiming to be liberal quite reasonable conservative, their liberalism is based on being sorry for the invaders that drown in rivers and oceans.

146 is a very good number. Mine is only in the 130s. However, some IQ test questions involve the accumulation of information, which certainly is an indicator of a fertile mind. But my specialty is logic, and by extension validity. The conclusion that something can not exist because we have no indication of it is a violation of logic.
I think there is a tendency for people to think that our senses and minds are as great as it gets....since that is our worldly experience. A fundamental truth is that it is easy to look down the ladder of intelligence (and existence), and quantify it's lesser status. But it's a whole different ball game trying to recognize what is above you. A little extrapolation makes it quite possible that "things" ( in the broadest meaning of the word) could exist in the universe that are simply far beyond our comprehension or senses. This, of course, is no endorsement of the lunacy of the bible, or of the attributes the religious crowd has assigned to their "God".

@balance_point

"The conclusion that something can not exist because we have no indication of it is a violation of logic."

Only in some instances. If a claim is such that there should be lots of evidence for it, or very specific evidence, or easily discovered evidence, and none is ever found, then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

If your neighbor comes running out of their house screaming that their entire family was just murdered and there is blood everywhere, and you go in to find no blood anywhere, and all the family members fine, then you've just demonstrated a negative (there was no murder). Does that mean it is impossible for all the family members to have secret twins, that plastic was placed everywhere to catch the blood, and the twins instantly disposed of the plastic and their twins bodies? No. It means it is extremely unlikely.

And on the other hand, if a claim is such that there should be NO evidence for it, then the claim is unfalsifiable nonsense, and placed on a very, very long list of similarly baseless claims that are all mutually exclusive of each other. In other words, you can't take any of them seriously unless someone gives you some good reason to, or new evidence emerges (in which case it isn't unfalsifiable anymore).

Moreover, people often make claims about gods that violate the very logical absolutes that define what it means for anything to exist (in whatever way it exists). Any god that is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, perfect, creator god violates logic in terms of its own supposed existence on multiple levels. This was easily noticed well over 2000 years ago.

@greyeyed123 Ok...first of all, I was not trying to support the Christian version of God. I am referring to any generic god (or higher power) that could conceivably exist. There is no presupposition that we would know anything about the form of that "god", or what it's possible influence may be on us, or whether it would be bound in some way to protect us from harm or injustice. Therefore there is no requirement for "lots of evidence". Therefore absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence.
Your example of a neighbor screaming that his family has been murdered is a claim of particular facts that can be disproven upon inspection. My assertion of the POSSIBILITY of a "god" makes no such particular claims. So absence of verification does not eliminate the possibility.
Just because some people claim that their god is all powerful, omnibenevolent, etc., that does not mean that, in fact, any "god" that may exist is bound by those requilrements. Only the stupid religious zealots claim to know how god would operate. Wise people would not be so presumptuous.

@balance_point

"My assertion of the POSSIBILITY of a "god" makes no such particular claims. So absence of verification does not eliminate the possibility."

But it doesn't mean it is possible either. To say something is possible is to say that something LIKE the thing under consideration even exists. If nothing like it has ever been demonstrated to exist, then saying it is "possible" only means it is conceivable, not that it is actually possible in reality.

Moreover, if the god claim has no means to demonstrate or disprove upon inspection, the claim (as I said) is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims are useless for this very reason, and because (as I said) they are on a very long list of mutually exclusive unfalsifiable claims.

"Just because some people claim that their god is all powerful, omnibenevolent, etc., that does not mean that, in fact, any "god" that may exist is bound by those requilrements. Only the stupid religious zealots claim to know how god would operate. Wise people would not be so presumptuous."

But once you subtract those elements from the definition of god, or water them down, what is left could be anything from my neighbor Bob to an alien with telekinesis. The word "god" comes with a lot of baggage. Redefining it so comprehensively--or dropping key elements entire--just to show that such a being could exist, misses the point.

You could say god has the most power of any being in our part of the universe, but is not omnipotent. He knows everything he wants to know, and doesn't know things he doesn't want to know (is not omniscient). He's not omnibenevolent because he makes choices, and thus sometimes makes mistakes, which allows evil. He is not omnipresent, but exists in one place at a time. He didn't create the multi-universe or existence, but has always existed. He created our universe from preexisting elements, but he is not perfect.

What kind of god is that? It's just a sad dude that is slightly more powerful than we are in a context we don't understand. I think if you asked most theists (or atheists for that matter) if that was what they mean by "god", they would say no. And if such a being was discovered, why would anyone call that "god" anyway?

@greyeyed123 When I refer to the possibility of a god, I DO mean the possibility in the real world right now. You assert that my proposal that "a god's existece is possible" is an invalid statement. In so doing you are saying that a god's existence is NOT possible...which by definition means impossible. (there is no space between not possible and impossible).
You further support your position of "god not possible" by claiming that if there is no evidence of something, then there must at least be evidence of something similar for it to be possible. So your stance boils down to an assertion that "the absence of any evidence of something (or evidence of something similar), then the thing in question is impossible in reality. That will clearly not hold water. Imagine in the year 1000...2 men standing outside looking at the sky. Man 1 says "It is possible there are giant black holes in the universe...so powerful that they crush anything into almost nothing....even light. Man 2 says "I have seen no evidence of that. or of anything similar to that, so black holes are impossible." According to your line of thought, man 2 would have been correct, black holes were impossible.

@balance_point

"n so doing you are saying that a god's existence is NOT possible...which by definition means impossible. (there is no space between not possible and impossible)."

Yes there is. The fact that you do not know if it is possible or not possible.

I hold out my fist to flip a coin. You say it is possible I could flip heads. I flip, and actually roll a di that falls on four. Was it ACTUALLY possible in reality that I could have flipped a heads? No. You only thought that it was. Was it actually impossible? Yes, because I had no coin. But you had no way to know either of those things with no evidence.

"You further support your position of "god not possible" by claiming that if there is no evidence of something, then there must at least be evidence of something similar for it to be possible. So your stance boils down to an assertion that "the absence of any evidence of something (or evidence of something similar), then the thing in question is impossible in reality."

No. You are missing my point entirely. I'm saying you cannot assess the possibility of it at all. For example, say I have a million sided di. Rolling 444,444 has a 1 in a million probability of rolling. In other words, any number between 1 and 1 million is possible to roll. Now let's say I have a di with a fixed number of sides. I do not tell you the number of sides. What is the probability of rolling 444,444? You do not know because you do not know how many sides there are. But is it POSSIBLE to roll 444,444? You do not know that either because you do not know how many sides there are.

In this case, saying "god is possible" is even worse, as nothing like a "di" has ever been discovered. Having no di at all, and saying it is possible to roll 444,444 is irrational.

"That will clearly not hold water. Imagine in the year 1000...2 men standing outside looking at the sky. Man 1 says "It is possible there are giant black holes in the universe...so powerful that they crush anything into almost nothing....even light. Man 2 says "I have seen no evidence of that. or of anything similar to that, so black holes are impossible." According to your line of thought, man 2 would have been correct, black holes were impossible."

That isn't my line of thought. Man 2 actually says, "If that is true, someday we will find evidence of them. When that day comes, only then will we be justified in believing they are real."

Moreover, the way we learned that black holes were possible was through mountains and mountains of evidence and reason. That is why we looked for them in the first place. (Not by randomly looking up at the sky and saying they exist.)

There is no evidence at all for gods.

Just remember, not knowing if something is possible does not mean it is impossible, and not knowing if something is impossible or not does not mean it is possible.

The problem is that we humans are generally terrible at understanding numbers and probabilities. As soon as you say you are talking about the possibility of something in the real world now, you are talking numbers and probabilities while still holding on to the colloquial definitions of "possible" and "probable" and not even knowing it. "Possible" in the real world doesn't mean "conceivable", and "probable" doesn't mean "it feels like it very well might be true".

Totally agree. I beat you to it. Lol.

@nastynifty lol. Yeah, I think we posted at the same time, but you beat me to it. Great minds think alike Either way, What we both posted is sound.

I think the god lobby is still strong … Perhaps non-believers rank even lower than Muslims

@PontifexMarximus That is what these figures say, it seems strange that they should think this way....but perhaps it’s the fact that they see reason and a rejection of belief as a bigger threat than belief in another version of their own god worship.

Because many Americans still feel that believers = good, and non-believers = bad, evil. Agnostics are often felt to be kind of in-between, but not definitely non-believers, and thus are considered OK, or at least not downright bad.

You might be right.

@irascible Indeed. Framing / priming - even when done without intention, can result in answers that one least expects.

I'd disagree with you there simply because as a Life-Long Atheist WITH a ThD (Doctorate in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions) I CAN state that I have absolutely NO belief in any God/Gods/Deities what-so-ever, ergo I am NOT, in any shape nor form a Deist/Theist/Agnostic or anything else, I am a Free-Thinking, Logically Minded, Rational person who neither needs/wants nor desire a belief in anything except Reality, Reason and Empirically Tried, Tested and Proven Facts.

@Triphid Ok. Your argument from authority is a logical fallacy though and it seems very egotistical coming from the person claiming the authority.

The burden of proof is on you then, if you are making an absolute claim and as you didn't state it, so I have to ask, what proof do you have that there is no creator(s)? That should be news worthy.

@Bogz Yes. It literally does. [merriam-webster.com]

@Bogz [etymonline.com]

@nastynifty Logic and pure, simple reasoning are the ONLY proof needed, plus over 7 years of intense studying to gain far more knowledge of the Xstian Myth than the average religious Priest/Minister, etc.

The brain (aka god) works in mysterious ways.

@jlynn37 So does the timetable for the Melbourne metro!

@Geoffrey51 Perhaps, but the Melbourne metro doesn't entangle your brain in religious nonsense.

@jlynn37 depends when and where you are going!

Replies do often take wild tangents here, don't they. I plead guilty. I have no real input for your question. But I do notice it is often difficult to pin someone down as to what exactly they mean by "athiest". Enjoy your day.

What about Czechs?

@PontifexMarximus No laughing matter. As a Pole, I am concerned that people keep taking us, but don’t put us back.

No pollish jokes?

What is the "the illiberal regressive leftist agenda"?

@PontifexMarximus Makes no sense.

It is largely taboo to state that the left can be "regressive" or "illiberal". If you label classical liberalism as being "conservative", you might be a regressive leftist.

@PontifexMarximus

@PBuck0145 Dave Rubin? Really? Besides, the overwhelming majority of conservatives haven't been conservatives for some time. They want big government in every uterus, they don't care about exploding debt and deficit as long as Trump is in charge, "conserving" the environment went out of vogue with Teddy Roosevelt (or dare I say, Nixon?), law-and-order federal agencies (still filled with Republicans) are now somehow filled with Deep State Democrats, honesty and fairness do not matter as long as they get what they want, capitalism declares we work for the markets (and they do not work for us), and turning on a dime on any issue is fine as long as Trump is doing it.

There is certainly a regressive left element out there, but side by side with Trumpsters is no comparison.

@greyeyed123 I am having difficulty discerning the point of your rant.

@PBuck0145 It's the irony of pointing out hypocrisy in a tiny percentage of one side and not noticing the other side has been taken over wholesale by hypocrisy. There is no "Republican party" or conservative party anymore. It's just the Trump party. (And this is me completely acknowledging the existence of a regressive left. It's just no where near the entire left, whereas virtually the entire right is now Trump supporters, sans a small handful with principles...and sans an even smaller handful that had principles but abandoned them...and sans a baby handful that go back and forth depending on the way the political winds are blowing today.)

@greyeyed123 Fair enough. FYI, I support neither DJT nor the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

@PBuck0145 I thought the Dem. debates were mostly a disaster. I'm hoping beyond hope that that was just the nature of having so damned many people on the stage, and something better will come out in the wash.

@PBuck0145 I see you are a fan of Dave Rubin. He has disassociated from the modern liberal perspective in favor of libertarianism. That is certainly his right. But I reject his notion that today's liberal progressive ideology is actually regressive.

@balance_point Marxism, intersectionality, collectivism, encouragement of Islam, anti-white racism, anti-male bigotry, equality of outcome, opposition to meritocracy. IMO those are all regressive.

@greyeyed123 The GOP went insane when Obama was elected. The Democrats lost it when Trump was elected. Neither group has made any progress towards restoring their sanity. The U.S. needs a third major party an proportional representation, which will force cooperation and coordination between / among the parties.
Canada and Britain also need proportional representation, for the same reason.

@PBuck0145 I've heard this before, but third parties never get any traction. Nothing is stopping anyone from voting for them. Moreover, all that ever happens with a third party candidate is that they drain votes away from one side or the other. (Ranked voting would give third party candidates much more traction over time...which is part of the reason it will never happen. The other part is that Fox News will declare it a plot to nullify Republican votes--even though it would not do that at all--and it would be dead in the water for decades to come.)

Well, the GOP insanity when Obama was elected was that Obama was born in Kenya, could be the anti-christ, grandma was going to be on death panels, and everyone had the right and freedom to get sick and die because god would be their health insurance...until they got sick and demanded someone pay for their healthcare. (A huge plurality of Republicans believed these things. Hell, 51% still believed Obama was born in Kenya in 2017.)

In terms of...

"Marxism," I think this is mostly a conservative boogie-man. Is anyone suggesting capitalism be done away with wholesale? Even Thomas Piketty's book that analyzes all history economic data suggests that capitalism as such is the engine that keeps everything moving. It's just when it is completely unchecked when things go wrong. Wealth based on having wealth always grows faster than wealth based on work, which means the system will not sustain indefinitely.

"intersectionality," I can't say I've heard of this term before, and the wikipedia page says there are multiple issues with the entry, so I just have to shrug.

"collectivism," It depends on how you use the term, I guess. Family, church, community, and charity would seem to be all forms of collectivism. I guess conservatives would criticize governmental collectivism as bad, while other forms would be acceptable, depending.

"encouragement of Islam," I would encourage moderates to check their extremists. I would agree there is an Islam problem (within an overall religion problem).

"anti-white racism," I'm sure this exists, but having been white all my life, I've never experienced it, and yet have witnessed other types of racism on multiple occasions. I do think throwing out the Western Canon for being largely written by dead white guys is idiotic.

"anti-male bigotry," Doesn't this contradict with the intersectionality thing?

"equality of outcome," That can be a problem.

"opposition to meritocracy." This is certainly regressive.

"IMO those are all regressive." Sure. But I think they are mostly overstated also. But I could be wrong.