[split]Atheism is based of ignorance.

[Sword of Christ]

Hello, I am a 22 year old Australian writer, who is definitely not Richard Dawkins. That being out of the way, my atheism is based on an internal skepticism coupled with a study of religious claims and arguments for the existence of god, a background in university-level philosophy courses, and an understanding that one cannot prove existential things by means of theology and philosophy, no matter how deeply or piously one thinks about them.

You're still looking for scientific evidence for God the same way Dawkins would. By his very definition you would not be able to "prove his existence with science" this isn't a scientific hypothesis or explanation. It is a context yes, there is going to be a eternal context of some kind one way or the other and again science doesn't and can't prove what that will be.

Okay, great! In that case, I am in no way justified in believing in your god without having that internal, faith based experience myself, and I have not.

If assume materialism to begin with you may still experience God but you'll have some other explanation for it and still be an atheist.

Moreover, without that experience, I cannot deem you or any other religious person to be justified in their belief either, and you need to ask yourself why your god won't grant me that experience, if this is the case.

I'm sure you experience something you just won't ascribe it to God.

Scientific hypotheses aren't the only things that have burdens of proof either, because that concept is not purely scientific; logic dictates that existential claims- like the ones you make about god- also require a burden of proof before anyone is logically justified in believing them.

Whats the more logical alternative to an eternal creator of the universe who is relational with his creatures? It's more logical that there was an explosion and as an unintentional byproduct we just happened to end up here? There was no margin for error in this whole process you know this was all very finely balanced, and you're still saying it wasn't intentional at all? What makes you think it wasn't? Atheists don't demonstrate their reasoning for this but seem to consider it to be a given unless demonstrated otherwise.

In support of this, I show merely the fact that the opposite, wherein we are required to accept every claim sans evidence, is ludicrous.

Of course but again you can't prove the existence of God via the scientific method. Certainly you can take the universe as a whole and point out that we're dealing with a complex piece of machinery, or a complex growing and thriving living entity. Random unfathomable cosmic chaos it is not there is structure, growth and development and we are a part of it.

Happily, science isn't the only way you might fulfill that burden of proof; I require no scientific tests at all to have the existence of a dog proven to me.

There isn't a burden of proof for God because you can prove the existence of God with science. You can come to the conclusion that God exists via deductive reasoning based on the kind of things we know about the universe.

Yes, I imagine a reality based worldview would look that way, from your seat in candyland.

You're presupposing God isn't a reality but that's you're opinion of what reality is. And you're wrong about this one.

We don't know more than anyone else? I agree. Are you then saying that you see the same complete lack of evidence for one that I do, or did you misspeak?

If you call your view of a Godless universe the "reality based worldview" then you're claiming to know what the nature of reality ultimately is as a statement of fact. No you don't know, GTFO. Listen to the wisdom of the Space Gnome.

If you do know more than me about this subject, then you need to ask yourself why you can't convince me of the claim

Because you're presupposing materialism and assuming God is a scientific claim or explanation which the scientific method is applicable to. It is not applicable to God.

I follow the facts, not any internalized role I need to fill. So does every other atheist here. Funny, how we still exist despite your presence, with your knowledge of god.

And the fact we exist at all is some kind of unintentional accident/byproduct isn't that right? No it seems a bit unlikely to me everything considered. The universe clearly is some kind of precisely structured process with a clear beginning. It grew and developed over time, we and all living things (all flesh as the Bible would call it) are part of this very same process. This is something we actually know, we can see it, study it, it is factual and yes it perfectly well does fit with role of a creator God or supreme intelligence.

Incidentally, poisoning the well with that little "humanity's leading authority" crack won't work, because someone with even an ounce of logic in them will see immediately that the one group of people who feels that the question has no merit at all, are the atheists.

The question has a lot of merit and fit perfectly with the universe we can observe. Atheists are the group of people who just go "pffffft" shrug their shoulders and expect to have entitlement to call anyone who has a faith in God delusional.

[Faith No More]

[Esquilax]

You're still looking for scientific evidence for God the same way Dawkins would. By his very definition you would not be able to "prove his existence with science" this isn't a scientific hypothesis or explanation. It is a context yes, there is going to be a eternal context of some kind one way or the other and again science doesn't and can't prove what that will be.

I'm looking for evidence at all. The fact that you don't have any, the fact that you're reduced to vaguely mystical personal experiences and ookie feelings is a pretty bad sign.

If assume materialism to begin with you may still experience God but you'll have some other explanation for it and still be an atheist.

If your personal experience- the unique, and sole way by which one can be convinced of the truth of god- is so vague that it can be interpreted as something else, then how the hell do you know you haven't just interpreted it wrong by assuming mysticism is true?

I'm sure you experience something you just won't ascribe it to God.

This is another problem with your claims: rather than just answering my contentions, you and so many others would rather get defensive and start reinterpreting our reasons for why we aren't convinced. My response to that is simply, grow up.

The other important note here is that, if the evidence for your god is so strong that it can convince you- and I'm sure you don't think I'm any more rational than you- then you could rob us atheists of all our credibility, turn us into the contrarians you think we are, by simple presenting that evidence to everyone. If you're so convincing, we wouldn't have nearly the voice that we have now. We'd be like the flat earthers, and yet...

Whats the more logical alternative to an eternal creator of the universe who is relational with his creatures?

It's more logical to not believe in something without evidence for it. I don't need an alternative to something that doesn't have a rational basis in itself. Do you need an alternative to bigfoot?

It's more logical that there was an explosion and as an unintentional byproduct we just happened to end up here?

Brush that straw off your coat, man!

There was no margin for error in this whole process you know this was all very finely balanced, and you're still saying it wasn't intentional at all?

I'm saying that small chances aren't the same as impossible, and that in retrospect the chances of it happening are one hundred percent. Also, I am absolutely certain that you have no significant education in cosmology, biology or chemistry, and combining that with our inability to discover certain things about the past just yet, you have no method by which you can make a calculation of probability, error margins or the process itself, anyway.

What makes you think it wasn't? Atheists don't demonstrate their reasoning for this but seem to consider it to be a given unless demonstrated otherwise.

I think it wasn't because I haven't been provided a reason to believe you. Do you have one, or just more of this petty bullcrap?

Of course but again you can't prove the existence of God via the scientific method.

There are more ways to prove something than science. Pick one.

Certainly you can take the universe as a whole and point out that we're dealing with a complex piece of machinery, or a complex growing and thriving living entity. Random unfathomable cosmic chaos it is not there is structure, growth and development and we are a part of it.

Prove it. Because what I see is a big load of emptiness that occasionally explodes or is engulfed in radioactive fire, through which endless deadly particles stream in random patters and occasionally fall into superdense maws in spacetime that nothing can escape, and that we're an insignificant speck in an insignificant galaxy that is eventually going to collide with another.

I also see christians willing to ignore these things when it suits their purposes.

There isn't a burden of proof for God because you can prove the existence of God with science. You can come to the conclusion that God exists via deductive reasoning based on the kind of things we know about the universe.

So, like so many others of your ilk, you seek to just define your god into existence with presuppositions and a bias you refuse to recognize, rather than just provide evidence, which is something you can do for any other existential claim.

You're presupposing God isn't a reality but that's you're opinion of what reality is. And you're wrong about this one.

Do not presume to know what I think.

If you call your view of a Godless universe the "reality based worldview" then you're claiming to know what the nature of reality ultimately is as a statement of fact. No you don't know, GTFO. Listen to the wisdom of the Space Gnome.

Reality is neutral to god, at the moment, and I don't know whether there is or isn't one, because I've looked at the available evidence and all I can muster is a shrug and anticipation of what we'll discover next. But you do believe in a god, and given your inability to back up that claim, this is at odds with the neutral reality that really does exist.

Because you're presupposing materialism and assuming God is a scientific claim or explanation which the scientific method is applicable to. It is not applicable to God.

Again, I'll tell you what I believe. You recasting this as some childish little conspiracy isn't helping your case.

And the fact we exist at all is some kind of unintentional accident/byproduct isn't that right?

Yes, if you like.

No it seems a bit unlikely to me everything considered.

I don't care. That's just an argument from personal incredulity. I care what you can demonstrate.

The universe clearly is some kind of precisely structured process with a clear beginning.

The concept of a beginning might not even make sense in a pre-big bang universe, we don't know. That means, neither do you, so stop pretending like you do.

It grew and developed over time, we and all living things (all flesh as the Bible would call it) are part of this very same process. This is something we actually know, we can see it, study it, it is factual and yes it perfectly well does fit with role of a creator God or supreme intelligence.

Internally consistent does not mean true. Demonstrate your claims.

The question has a lot of merit and fit perfectly with the universe we can observe. Atheists are the group of people who just go "pffffft" shrug their shoulders and expect to have entitlement to call anyone who has a faith in God delusional.

If you believe in something but all you have to justify it is a feeling and a rationalization you've convinced yourself of, then what is there to separate you from the delusional? They do all the same things, you know.

[NoraBrimstone]

Hello, I am a 22 year old Australian writer, who is definitely not Richard Dawkins.

Prove it.

[Esquilax]

[quote='Sword of Christ' pid='520388' dateline='1381254750']
Hello, I am a 22 year old Australian writer, who is definitely not Richard Dawkins.

Prove it.

No. And now, you'll always wonder.

[Tonus]

And the fact we exist at all is some kind of unintentional accident/byproduct isn't that right? No it seems a bit unlikely to me everything considered. The universe clearly is some kind of precisely structured process with a clear beginning. It grew and developed over time, we and all living things (all flesh as the Bible would call it) are part of this very same process. This is something we actually know, we can see it, study it, it is factual and yes it perfectly well does fit with role of a creator God or supreme intelligence.

Ignorance is not a good reason to turn to god. Like so many theists, you have a faulty understanding of the universe and what has been discovered about it. What "we actually know, see and study" has not pointed to god at all. It has pointed to natural processes, and continues to do so. The only place you are able to insert god is in those constantly-shrinking gaps that science has yet to fill. But that isn't science, that's wishful thinking.

[Sword of Christ]

Ignorance is not a good reason to turn to god.

But our relative ignorance is a damn good reason to deny anything beyond the physical world or some kind of greater meaning/purpose to life? Hmmm... I'm not really seeing how this follows tbh, but feel free to explain this.

Like so many theists, you have a faulty understanding of the universe and what has been discovered about it.

We discovered some interesting things about it through science to be fair. It's interesting that the universe can be rationally understood by rational minds in the first place. I think there is a good reason why we can explain it as well as we're able. Not that we have even scratched the surface of it.

What "we actually know, see and study" has not pointed to god at all.

You can have that opinion though my opinion is different . I see the hand of God involved and I don't think it's really that difficult a thing to see once you appreciate what you're looking at. You can't see God directly but you can see what he made.

It has pointed to natural processes, and continues to do so.

Much like the Bible portrayed it then? You have a God as the creator and you have the natural world he made that was always the deal. There isn't say a god of thunder or a god of the ocean who controls that bit of the natural world there is one complete natural order.

The only place you are able to insert god is in those constantly-shrinking gaps that science has yet to fill. But that isn't science, that's wishful thinking.

God isn't something you insert God is the context in which everything exists.

[Esquilax]

But our relative ignorance is a damn good reason to deny anything beyond the physical world or some kind of greater meaning/purpose to life? Hmmm... I'm not really seeing how this follows tbh, but feel free to explain this.

Okay, you're back to this? Fine: I no longer have any illusions that you're approaching this seriously. You're a liar, plain and simple. You're dishonest, and a hypocrite.

[Sword of Christ]

If you want to say we don't or can't know for certain, this side of death anyway, then I'm going to agree with you. What I don't agree with is why you opted to believe what you believe. Some aspects of faith can be challenging and you may find yourself disagreeing or chafing against certain dogmas and doctrine and what have you. The Enlightenment and the scientific era did happen you can't go back to the middle ages. But I still don't see you would have to abandon all faith in God when there many good reasons to believe he exists, now more than ever possibly. So yes I'm being serious.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If you want to say we don't or can't know for certain, this side of death anyway, then I'm going to agree with you. What I don't agree with is why you opted to believe what you believe. Some aspects of faith can be challenging and you may find yourself disagreeing or chafing against certain dogmas and doctrine and what have you. The Enlightenment and the scientific era did happen you can't go back to the middle ages. But I still don't see you would have to abandon all faith in God when there many good reasons to believe he exists, now more than ever possibly. So yes I'm being serious.

Or, rather, not believe.

There are no 'good reasons' to believe any god exists, not yours, not anyones.

Yours is a position of faith (and there's nothing wrong with that on a personal level. Whatever makes you happy). Ours is a position of not believing your claims (which are based on faith). The fact you are using 'god' in the singular, presuming that it is 'your' version of whatever god it is you believe speaks volumes and further reinforces why we don't believe the claims of theists regarding their god(s). For, naturally, what you say about there being 'good reasons' to believe your god is an exact carbon copy of what a Muslim would say about Allah, or a Hindu about (just one) Shiva (et al). We view all theistic claims as equally baseless. We do not hold any god above another.

That is a virtue, not a vice.