Comments on: Why Atheism is Wrong

By: Isobel Shaw

Isobel Shaw — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:13:48 +0000

the religion of my grandfather is Hinduism and he says that it is a great religion.”";

By: Daniel Evans

Daniel Evans — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:41:17 +0000

Hinduism is a cool religion that is also oriented towards peace and prosperity.-**

By: George Bachmann

George Bachmann — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:54:59 +0000

I should think that ‘Non-Theist’ is a perfect understandable word withoutout
stating that it is “Broad Atheism” Atheism is an active assertion that
God, etc. doe not exist. Non-theists tend to say that the proposition,
“God Exists”, cannot be proven or verified; so that it becomes a fruitless
and useless idea. Atheism and Non-Theism are two perfectly useful
terms; so why muddy up the picture? Religions like Hinduism and
Buddhism or fringe Christianity/Islam really depend upon practice not ‘theology’ You may learn more from the practice of Pranayana than infrequently saying a Pater Noster’ once a day.

By: Gandarva Mitra

Gandarva Mitra — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:55:57 +0000

Explicit theism will be incorrect until a self-supporting argument can be made that proves the possible existence of any god or gods.

So the ball is in the Theists’ court. Can they prove the existence of one, or many gods? I doubt it.

By: ty

ty — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:58:10 +0000

you have been greatly mis-informed as to the definition of atheist. There is only one kind of atheist that would be as you describe it the “explicit” atheist. An atheist is one who believes in no god whatsoever, whether it be the christian god, allah virishna, zeus, and many others. The other type of atheist, as you describe it actually , to me, sounds more like an agnostic. He would think that there is no way to prove whether or not a god could exist. I suggest you do your homework before you delve into a topic with which you have no experience

By: Samuel Skinner

Samuel Skinner — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:18:07 +0000

“To my knowledge there is no self-sustained logic that a explicit atheist could use that would achieve their objective. ”

Simple. If there is no evidence for a proposition, you are perfectly justified in saying that it doesn’t exist.

“As stated earlier, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. A perfectly acceptable practice in one culture may be completely wrong elsewhere.”

Nope. Logic and reason are universal.

“Explicit atheism will be incorrect until a self-supporting argument can be made that disproves the possible existence of any god or gods.”

For starters, the idea of “God” has not been adequately defined. Until a definition arrives that isn’t internally contradictory, it is reasable to doubt its validity and assert its falsity.

By: Asylum Seeker

Asylum Seeker — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:10:19 +0000

I think I may be a broadly explicit atheist, in that I lack belief, do not deny that deities could possibly exist, but claim that the chances of any given deity existing out of all possible combinations is infinitesimally low, and thus can dismiss any given description of an unverifiable entity beyond our current ability to observe as incredibly improbable and can deny it in that manner. I am an explicit atheist towards any given god. Toss every conceivable religion and conception of a deity in front of me at once, and I am broad atheist (and possibly several centuries older).

By: bryGPO

bryGPO — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:41:52 +0000

i agree. the broad atheist sees that the evidence so far does not support the existence of god, but if enough credible evidence was found, they would change their minds. explicit atheists are in the same position as agnostics who believe there can never be any evidence either way. in the future we may develop some instrument to detect god(s), but right now the probability of god(s) existing, in light of the evidence, is quite low.