i absolutely agree! humans are afraid of facing the fact there is a end for each of us, so they set up religions to calm down their small minds with a illusion of "immortality" to displace the reality
I prefer agnosticism to atheism because it at least is an honest philosophical position, while the latter is not only based on but takes pride in its own ignorance; see flR above for details. I cannot see why so many people willingly embrace atheism to be honest; the bourgeoisie gone mad me thinks!
Can you name another position or theory which is founded intrinsically on disbelief rather than necessary truth; even the fall-back argument of 'you cannot prove he exists' (i.e. disbelief) is problematic when you consider modern philosophy still struggles with Cartesianism?
The 'you cannot prove he exists' is not an argument I use because no-one can prove he doesn't exist, just as no-one can prove anything doesn't exist. Also, no-one can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Where am I being ignorant in saying....I don't believe in a god.
I answered your question. I put forward an analogy to validate the usefulness of atheism as a system of thought, which you did not respond to, and briefly mentioned Cartesianism, which is a useful system of thought that validates the existence of God, though I will not say whether I agree with it or not, and you did not respond to that either. Nevertheless, the definition of ignorance is a 'want of knowledge (general or special)' and atheists – in a discussion of God's existence – negate types of knowledge which prove the existence of God; you would call me ignorant if I disputed the existence of gravity because I did not believe in rationalism, too, I assume so where is the continuity?
Atheism isn't a system of thought nor is it 'useful'.
I've only been on the wiki of Cartesianism and haven't read anything which would suggest it as being useful either or that there is any evidence for it whatsoever. Perhaps you could direct me to somewhere which supports your assertion. Believing in something simply because it's usefel yet has no evidence to support it is a bit of a non sequitur.
I don't even understand what you're saying about ignorance. Ignorance is a 'want of knowledge' ? What?
Ignorance is a 'want of knowledge'; that is the Oxford English dictionary definition. With regards to Cartensiam, if you are unfamiliar with Rene Descartes's work then this discussion cannot progress; he is the most important philosopher since Aristotle, and I do not think arguments about the existence of God, thus atheism as a negation of God's existence, can be conducted without a physical grounding.
God doesn't exist.
also "sense" or a meaning of something is a invention of the human mankind as it cant be measured or anything so his question is not relevant.
Where's the ignorance again?
The 'you cannot prove he exists' is not an argument I use because no-one can prove he doesn't exist, just as no-one can prove anything doesn't exist. Also, no-one can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Where am I being ignorant in saying....I don't believe in a god.
I've only been on the wiki of Cartesianism and haven't read anything which would suggest it as being useful either or that there is any evidence for it whatsoever. Perhaps you could direct me to somewhere which supports your assertion. Believing in something simply because it's usefel yet has no evidence to support it is a bit of a non sequitur.
I don't even understand what you're saying about ignorance. Ignorance is a 'want of knowledge' ? What?
As for the rest of your comment, all I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way, but I beg to differ.