Religion in American society

It's a simple yes or no question.

exactly.

I just said it. I don't believe in gods because there is no evidence for them.

I consider deities to be gods. Making Buddhists tend to believe in gods...although I would have to ask a Buddhist what they think about their deities/gods.

Since you're dodging that question, here's another:

Do you consider yourself a strong or weak atheist?

How is saying I don't believe in gods dodging? If you dont like that I reason my answer it's not my problem.
I would consider myself a strong atheist, more of a Hitchens than a Harris.

The lack of belief in gods does not translate to the belief in a lack of gods. My question was not about whether or not you didn't believe in the existence of gods, it was about whether you believed in their non-existence. And apparently you do.

Then you are an anti-theist and just as irrational as theists. Congratulations.

buddhists can believe in deities/gods, but there are no gods in buddhism so the usually believe in hindu gods or from other asian religions.

The bodhisattvas are, for all intents and purposes, gods.

a bodhisattvas IS an ordinary person who takes up a course in his or her life that moves in the direction of buddha.
anyone who directs their attention, their life, to practicing the way of life of a buddha is a bodhisattva.

Its like talking to a wall.... I dont believe because there is no reason to. Which god should I choose? Is there someone who provides more evidence for his existence than any other? No. Not one god gives evidence, most require to follow blindly and do what they tell you to do. It is 100% resonable to be sceptic about something that can't be proven in anyway.
To actually suggest that it is exactly as bad to believe something without evidence of its existence, and not believe something for which there is no evidence is illogical, unreasonable and insanely stupid.

EDIT: As i explained in another topic, the default position is not believing. If I tell you, I have a invisible dragon in my garage, it would be reasonable to not believe it until i proof to you that i have.

The bodhisattvas are the buddhist equivalent of gods.

Also @Kali, could you explain you're logic in this to me? It had me utterly and hopelessly confused...

I don't disagree with you or agree with you...because I really have no idea what you're saying

EDIT:

One of the things he is describing is atheism, the other is agnosticism.

i agree.

Oh, that makes sense now.

He makes a point.

Claiming that a god exists or does not exist is an extraordinary claim. The default and rational position (according to the status quo paradigm of positivism) is to recognize that we can't know the answer to that question. Agnosticism and "weak atheism" are the default rational positions. You might be able to claim that specific gods do not exist and remain rational, as is the case with Zeus or Odin, but it is impossible to know if most gods exist. "Strong atheism"/anti-theism is dogmatic precisely because it holds the nonexistence of a god or gods as undeniable truth. The metric by which that truth is obtained does not stem from the current logical paradigm, and I don't think it would be possible to name a source for it at all, but in the end it is this claim which makes strong atheists irrational.

Mine.

Me.

Hey man, they're about as likely as the Christian God!

While I agree that we can't know for certain, I dont agree on the rest of your statement. How in the hell you came to the conclusion that dismissing Odin or Zeus is okay, while "others" ought to be considered true is strange. In two sentences I can, reasonably, show how worship of Odin is prefered to that of Jesus.... here it goes: Odin promised the end of all Frost Giants. Jesus promised the end of all wicked people. There are a lot of wicked people here, but no frostgiants. Therefore worship of Odin is to be prefered.
While you seem to fail to see the logic behind atheism, there is one. As I said over and over again, I studied the most popular religions there are. I can say for myself that worshipping gods that promote things like slavery are not worthy of my worship. Also, no form of atheism holds the "undeniable truth" that there are no gods as a dogma. As Dawkins said in his book "The god delusion", no atheist can be a 10 on a scale of atheism, 9.9 is perfectly reasonable. Ans as I said at least 3 times in this topic, if tomorow some god reveals itself and proves perfectly and unrefutably that he is the one true god that created everything, I would see my failure and convert. I hardly doubt ypou would do the same if the god is not the one you worship. That is the difference between a christian (who IS dogmatic) and a atheist who is not...

If you still don't get the fundamental difference in thinking we have, namely that you project your views of "undeniable truth" upon me, while I argue from my own point of view, than there is simply no helping you....

Little off topic here. But am I the only one who finds Richard Dawkins to be an insufferably boring prick?