I am an atheist.

[MyUserName]

I have a question for any active believers who've done the Alpha course:

That speaking in tongues malarky - it's just bollocks isn't it?

I am not an active believer but I have done an Alpha course, a life worth living course and go to church most Sundays as well as sing in their choir - does my answer count?!

[MyUserName]

You can define it how you want, but there's an actual definition that everybody else uses that can be applied...

Well I do not believe in God but I know there is a small chance I might be wrong, which would technically put me as an agnostic atheist.

But this is exactly the same as:

Well I do not believe in the tooth fairy but I know there is a small chance might be wrong, which would technically put me as an agnostic tooth fairyist.

Which is the same as:

Well you do not believe in Zeus but you know there is a small chance might be wrong, which would technically put you as an agnostic Zeusist(?).

[Project Monkey]

"I can find it for the invisible pink unicorn"

Go on then, find it and show it to us. I can't wait.

[d000hg]

Because I know people who have been on it, who I think are generally sane people, that believe it to be evidence of a god.

Being militantly agnostic, I find it to be evidence of anything but.

But, each to their own - so long as you don't go foisting your views on other people's way of life then I really couldn't give two hoots.

The bible itself says that tongues is not really for non-believers. Observing tongues is not good evidence to an unbeleiver in the same way that observing a healing or a prophecy would be... I could speak in tongues but I might be faking, if you were distraught because you'd just got a bill of £142.78 to fix your car so you could get to work which you couldn't pay, and I told you I felt moved to give you that exact amount (without you telling me), you'd at least take notice!

[Project Monkey]

Most of you lot aren't atheists anyway, you're all strong agnostics.

I'm an ignostic.

[Paddy]

Religion requires no burden of proof and this is the great thing about it. They simply rely on people having faith to believe that their deity exists. If they seek to provide "proof" (which cannot be given) then someone will find a way to refute it which would undermine their beliefs. The few religions which do attempt to rely on "proof" quickly find themselves to be exposed as a fraud.

Faith is the very essence of believing in something that there is no evidence for. If a person attempts to seek or present proof that their god exists then they lack faith. There is no more or less proof for the existence of any christian/muslim/hindu/sikh deity than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But religious people are forever going on about their proof such as wine at Holy Communion actually turns into the blood of Christ. God only speaks directly to the Pope who is infallible (which makes the job of PR for the church very difficult when they have to back-track that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe).

Zoroastrian is one of the world’s oldest religions (before Christ) and is still recognized in Iran. Iran’s New Year is not Islamic; it is Zoroastrian, New Year is at Easter and celebrated with painted eggs, mid-winter festival is celebrated on 21 December near Christmas.

[Project Monkey]

I have a question for any active believers who've done the Alpha course:

That speaking in tongues malarky - it's just bollocks isn't it?

Yes, IMHO.

[MyUserName]

"I can find it for the invisible pink unicorn"

Go on then, find it and show it to us. I can't wait.

The fact that anything exists is proof of her! The Invisible Pink Unicorn caused the entire universe!
Where you think the universe came from?
Where do you get your morality from?
How do you explain the divergence of life, which is clearly designed?
How do you explain the laws of logic?
You are not really a Unicorn atheist anyway, at the most you are a strong agnostic!

[doodab]

I thought atheists didn't have beliefs. How can you consider anything to be true if you don't have absolute proof?

I'm an atheist and I have beliefs, that is to say there are things that I believe to be true but cannot prove.

[NotAllThere]

...
But arithmetic can be physically demonstrated, the existance of God can not be. Well it could be, very easily if it were true but it has not been.

You've misunderstood. That the rules of arithmetic are consistent and will never lead to contradiction is something I believe to be true, but can be proved to be not provable.

It is absolutely impossible to prove that the rules of arithmetic will never lead to a contradiction. You cannot physically demonstrate it - it must be taken on (for want of a better word) faith.

I have had this evidence rammed down my thoat more times that I care to mention. It is usually a mix of pseudoscience, peer pressure, comfirmation bias and flawed logic. I have examined this evidence many times as well as the evidence presented on an Alpha course and debates with my wife's siblings. I have never found any of it convincing.

Many have found it convincing. So that's no measure of truth either.

The alpha course is aimed at a particular level. It does not go into the knotty problems of theology. Not everyone needs that in order to arrive at what some people consider to be the truth. I'm not entirely happy with its presentation, but then, I'm the kind of person who requires deeper analysis. I can't stand glib answers.

My personal experience of encountering the divine gave me sufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of God. However, my experience is highly unlikely to convince anyone else, nor to be accepted as evidence by them.