Show of Hands

A militant atheist is someone who aggressively belittles others for beliefs different then theirs. Same for militant Christians

That is just an aggressive atheist.

The term militant is used improperly in my opinion. More like a term used to rally support against a group.

Militant Christians...maybe the KKK?

Well then we can call them aggressive atheist, the question is still the same

You know. The atheists that are stalking the streets sniping theists.

A militant atheist is someone who aggressively belittles others for beliefs different then theirs. Same for militant Christians

Lets not devalue the term militant. A militant religious person murders others in the name of their religion. Atheists make jokes. Huge difference. ;)

They both belittle others, some in a more aggressive way.

Understatement much?

FSM is a fair comparison. Not meant to belittle the theists just meant to provide an example of a god for which there is no proof of existence.

God has no material form. It's a horrible comparison

Earth, it's all in the context of which they're used.

It sounds ridiculous to explain because the differences are so obvious.

FSM also has no form. There are pictures and writings written by men.

Gods are all the same...

Such as?

5,000 (maybe another zero, not sure) makes age 23-60 saw god on mount Sinai. There were women, younger and older makes there as well, and these people all told their kids they saw god. They all passed it down, generation to generation.

Also, god is above the laws of science, therefore science can't disprove him.

A rabbi, a very holy rabbi, had no oil to light the candles. And boom, he used vinegar, it worked.

Is that seriously your evidence?

Not alone. I have not been able to go deep enough into with my rabbi and don't recall all the other explanations clearly
BTW the odds of a single cell organism becoming a human are 10 to the power of 40.

It's like saying give some monkeys some typewriters, and see if they can write a whole play of Shakespeare in a billion years.

Waiting for actual evidence. In China they pasted down the same about dragons. Not dinosaurs but wise talking and awesome dragons.

Then there was the world existing on the back of a giant turtle. Also "true" and pasted down for generations.

Wow. Just... Wow.

I agree. It would be more equitable to compare present deities of favor with those of past cultures. Christian God with insert any of the thousands of very much believed in gods long forgotten by the mainstream religiosity.

I see that comparison just as often as Santa though I think. And really, what's the difference? Christian god, Norse god, Santa fsm etc., all are supported by absolutely zero evidence and must be taken on faith. The argument that they're all equally

Unproven is certainly valid. Using it to belittle is another thing, but the argument that they're all equally supported by evidence definitely holds water.

1. There is evidence for his existence: christian apologetics is knee deep in it.

2. The comparisons aren't applicable anyway.
www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary

That link still doesn't provide the evidence for existence or nonexistence.

The part about asking atheist to provide proof of nonexistence is pretty funny.

I don't want to debate the evidence on this forum at the moment, I was providing a possible venue for future research.

As far as the argument of existence goes it is much more of a philosophical debate than anything.

The hardcores try to use math and science but in the end the only way to talk about it is...just to talk about it. =)

I have read a number of books on the subject, both for and against.

Hundreds of online and actual debates...one that turned into a fight. (Don't use logic on a drunk bipolar sailor from, oddly enough, Kentucky. He doesn't want to hear it.)