RE: They deserve as much respect

Bingo - religions are not granted the right to be respected either. What bothers me is not a lack of recognition or glorification of atheism. Rather, I am bothered by the high horse that religions get onto regarding their legitimacy through attendance count and the scoffing at less mainstream activity (the aforementioned Scientologists, Wiccans, cults, etc.). If they would practice at home/church and not go on conversion missions, knock on my door asking if I've found Jesus or generally inhibit the rights of others ... then I would be content.

The only reason you find atheists making noise is because we either want everyone else to shut up or figure we can join in the noise-making, too. It is after all, an equal opportunity to exercise the right to express a belief. There are more atheists around today than is commonly believed, most just don't say anything to avoid the questioning or the judging that frequently follows.

Can you explain why you don't believe in Hindu gods?

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

Comparing gay marriage to driving on the wrong side of the road? A moment's reflection will easily answer the "why not?" question. The same for switching the roles of children and adults. No such luck on the gay marriage issue, though. Seems pretty obvious that all objections to it are rooted in religion, and that's a pretty lousy reason, in a free country.

First, the idea of a "free" country is rooted in the idea that anything that's not explicitly prohibited is permitted. So when something's prohibited, we are ethically obligated to come up with adequate reasons. Maintaining the status quo isn't one. Offense to religious sensibilities isn't either. So, in a free country, it's the prohibitionists that need to justify it.

And you missed my point when you comment on how little deserving of respect FSM and Jediism are. I didn't say they deserved respect - I said they should get at least as much respect as mainstream religion. In my opinion, none of them deserve respect.

In particular, a government that is constitutionally prohibited from making distinctions between religions is wrong to give tax breaks to churches. The US Constitution says the government cannot establish a relgion, but by adopting a tax law that says, in effect, "these are 'real' religions", and "these are 'cults'", they don't just establish one religion, but a whole host of them.

And let's not forget your misunderstanding of athiesm. It's not a "belief in nothing". It's the absence of a belief in something. These are not the same.

And being neutral on it? Intellectual cowardice.

There's essentially no credible evidence for the existence of any particular deity. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence against the existence of any particular deity.

Since religions claim all sorts of conflicting nonsense about deity, it's somewhat pointless to say that there's evidence against all of them. Deism says a deity created the world but isn't in the world, so there's no way for evidence of its existence or nonexistence to appear. Animism says that the deity is the world, so the existence of the animists deity is trivial - point and say, "See? There it is."

Theism, on the other hand, makes all kinds of testable claims - that prayer works, and that their deity favors those who worship, for example. We can (and have) make experiments to test these claims. Naturally, many believers were looking forward to the vindication of their beliefs. The experiments always come out showing no real effect, and the theists immediately start distancing themselves from them.

The point is that there's lots of evidence that the god of Abraham (whether interpreted through christianity, islam, or judaism) simply doesn't exist.

The agnostic stance is, therefore, indefensible. It's like saying, "there's no evidence that taking this aspirin won't turn me purple and give me cancer, so I won't take it, just to be safe." There's more than sufficient evidence to make a judgement.

And the whole "athiesm is a faith position" line is pretty tired, too. I'll admit that there are things an athiest must take "on faith" - that is, there are things we assume to be true without proof. For the most part, these are things that it would be hard to disbelive - we believe that rational thought processes are effective ways at getting at truth.

We all agree that rationality is effective at finding truth. Tell the most pious man that his daughter shoplifted and he'll demand rational proof. The religous believe there are "other" ways, and that some kinds of "truth" is not accessible to rationality.

When an athiest makes a judgement against religious faith, the complaint is not that it's a "faith position" - it's that there's no justification for the position, and often the position is intentionally obstructive.

This is why even the rare religious scientist is outraged by "intelligent design". It's offered as an "alternative explanation", but it doesn't actually explain anything. In fact, accepting it as an "explanation" actively prevents any further study of the subject.

So, no - athiests don't have more of a religion than they think. Generally, we've thought about it long and hard. It's the theists who believe without thought - as you yourself essentially admit in a later post. I've read serious theology by both christian and buddhist authors, and it's like night and day. The buddhists come across as having really thought it through and understanding what they're saying. The christians come across as guessing and wishing.

So, having surveyed the field, I'd say that the christians and muslims are among the least likely to be "right" about spiritual matters. Maybe that's enough to get you to go out and learn a thing or two about what others have to say. You clearly know nothing about even those who claim nothing more than that your beliefs are wrong.