How I learned to stop worrying and love atheists...

[WillParkinson]

I didn’t meet avowed nontheists until I arrived at college, and when I did, I tried hard to figure out what they were about. How could they not believe in some kind of… thing? Granted, at the time I was still building my own conception of the divine — a process that grows more beautiful and happy by the day. The friendly (honest!) conversation recounted above was the closest I ever came to admitting how I really felt: My brain couldn’t handle what I perceived as the irrationality of non-belief.

In time, of course, I mellowed. I realized that agnostics are capable of feeling just as much universe-rending glory as me without having to attribute it to some greater intelligence. Working and dialoguing with nontheists on issues of social concern, especially, helped me get my head on straight. But it wasn’t until I read Greta Christina’s Alternet piece “6 (Unlikely) Developments That Could Convince This Atheist To Believe In God” that I found a truly admirable and altogether frightening reality: religious people can’t be proven wrong.

http://nonprophetstatus.wordpress.com/tag/aurora-university/

[edcantor]

1. The cartoon is the best part of the article!

The author still holds to his religious beliefs. He's just proud of his tolerance.

Bully for him !

[gsantostasi]

2. religious people can be proven wrong all the time

It is not true that religious primitive belief cannot be proven wrong. On the contrary, this is what make an atheist an atheist. The realization that logic, empirical evidence and common sense demands not to believe in god. Even the existence of god itself is a scientific topic our days and the scientific answer is: there is no god: http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811

[AlbertCat]

3. there is no god:

Actually, science just makes it obvious there is NO NEED for a god. The supernatural is simply superfluous.

[DetlefK]

4. Do we need bottom- and top-quarks? Or tauons and tau-neutrinos?

The universe would look practically the same without those.

For example, the creation of life does not need a god (can be shown by mathematical proof via chemistry, thermodynamics and statistics), but "need" is a very weak qualifier to determine whether something exists or not at all. Guess what: The universe doesn't need YOU.

Occam's razor is correct MOST of the time.

[laconicsax]

5. I need them.

You have no idea how much I have emotionally invested in top quarks, bottom quarks, and tau-neutrinos. Tauons can go to hell.