(July 18, 2012 at 11:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: [quote='Selliedjoup' pid='312147' dateline='1342668552']
By requiring material evidence to assess whether a god exists they have assumed it to be true, not possible.

Quote:This is not true necessarily. It's more like, assuming the material world is real, it can explain life, through this and that all the way to evolution. Since the material world hypothesis is supported by evidence, and there is nothing to falsify it, it's a reasonable theory. There is no evidence to suggest that it's false, therefore there is no reason to assume there must be a Creator.

At if physical evidence proves a Creator, it doesn't prove God.

I can't see any reason to make the statement that there musn't be a creaotr, or that there is good reason to consider an creator unlikely. Using the matierialist view, the only way you could say a creator existed was if it physically existed within our universe, which would be virtually a redundant statement.

I assume the material world is real, as I'm unable to tell otherwise. On that basis I assume the material world is real, but see no reason to assume that if a creator exists it must be present within that which it's created, therefore, why would I use the material world to assess a creator's existence. Why do you think that you must assess the material world to determine it?

Quote: I have no idea how we could assess whether a god was 'worthy' of worship, unless it came down and instructed me to worship it.

Quote:Why would you believe in this god that came down though? What if it was lying?

How would I know it was lying?

Quote:What about people whom this god never came down and instructed them to worship it?

Your statement seems to imply it does exist, so it makes sense that they feel a sense of gratitude.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: Hello everyone. I have a question that I've been very curious about for awhile, and I'm opened minded to being persuaded one way or the other.

Ok.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: I'm sure you've all heard that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, well I'm unsure if that is actually true.

Its not.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: So here is my question, well, there is actually two questions:

It seems that many atheists are atheists not because of evidence against theism but because of a lack of evidence for theism. Is this true?

Nope. I, for one, am an atheist because of both - lack of evidence for any particular type of theism and plethora of evidence against multi-specific theistic doctrines.

(July 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm)nazra7 Wrote: If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

Not so, so no. But even if so, then still no. No reason to believe equals no belief. That is rational. Faith doesn't come into it.

---

(July 18, 2012 at 5:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Also, if Theism rests on a proof to be discovered, then belief in it will be cold type reliance like belief in a mathematical proof after seeing the proof.

You have said this before, but I don't see why the so-called god would be averse to getting known by those means.

Quote:I'm sure you've all heard that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, well I'm unsure if that is actually true.

It is completely untrue, why would it take faith to not believe in something? It's total nonsense.

Quote:It seems that many atheists are atheists not because of evidence against theism but because of a lack of evidence for theism. Is this true?

I am an atheist because I've seen no evidence or given any good reason to believe in a god. My stance is based on the lack of evidence for a god. I think there is in fact evidence against the idea of a god but does not disprove it's existence, merely demonstrates that a god was never needed for a universe to exist, and so this god would lack necessity to exist.

Quote:If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

No, there could be evidence that there is a god, however so far I've yet to see any that actually supports the existence of god. I don't think there is or can be any evidence for a god because I don't believe a god exists. However I am open to the idea and evidence that'll support such a claim.
No faith is involved.

(July 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: You are also guilty of equivocation - a logical fallacy - with the misleading use of a word with multiple meanings. In this case it is the word "faith", which, in the context you are quoting is synonymous with "confidence" as in "I have faith that Manchester United can overcome their difficulties and win the Premier League next year".

Beat me to it.

Faith is required as existence requires some form of answer, whether there is some form of creator or random natural processes caused existence, or something else, none of which there is proof for, an explanation is there.

Some atheists assert the low probability of a creator, so I ask them why and how they've come to believe this?

(July 19, 2012 at 4:39 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Faith is required as existence requires some form of answer, whether there is some form of creator or random natural processes caused existence, or something else, none of which there is proof for, an explanation is there.

Some atheists assert the low probability of a creator, so I ask them why and how they've come to believe this?

Your ignorance of proof does not equal absence of it.

Please feel welcome to point out the 'proof' I'm ignorant of.

(July 19, 2012 at 5:04 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Please feel welcome to point out the 'proof' I'm ignorant of.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/q...gbang.html

(July 19, 2012 at 5:28 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 5:04 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Please feel welcome to point out the 'proof' I'm ignorant of.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/q...gbang.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

(July 19, 2012 at 4:39 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Some atheists assert the low probability of a creator, so I ask them why and how they've come to believe this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor