Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Annik]

CoH, plz.

[DeistPaladin]

Put it this way: in The Elder Scrolls video games, there are Aedra and Daedra... distant gods and oft-present demons.

[...]

And in these games, I fully believe in all of these beings. Why? Because there is an observable effect as to them.

And this is why nearly every gamer I've ever known is an atheist. Perform a "Cure Light Wounds" spell and I'll believe.

[Creed of Heresy]

...Plz wut?

[downbeatplumb]

This thread presupposes incontrovertible evidence for a theistic god that is obvious to all.

Show me that evidence then we'll talk.

[Simon Moon]

Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

Simple answer for me.

My atheism is 100% provisional. As long as the demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic continues to be insufficient (or nonexistent) to support the existence of a god or gods, my atheism will continue.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

-Or- you could explain how it is.......you know, engage in that discussion you desire.
(you seem to be missing a key variable in your question btw)

Pro-tip

---

Along one interpretation, in the hypothetical granting the universe, and given god or no god, the probability for both is exactly 1 for 1.....because here we are. That's the trouble of assigning probability to an event that already happened.
Along another interpratation, granting the universe but not taking god or no god as a given, we weigh the evidence and reflect upon how that might compell us to modify our beliefs, insomuch as we have them - whatever they may be.

In one scenario, it's useless unless we take the very idea we wish to explore as a given (which is how we end up with parity between them-it was smuggled in before any computation was done-), but we can't really do anything else, as assigning a probability to a concept like god is absurd - give it a try. In the other, we have overwhelming evidence for one side of the coin - and yet people have failed to modify their beliefs. Not all of them, mind you, the RCC famously decided that "evolution was a-ok", recently as one example.

---

Did you come up with this yourself or did you copy and paste it?

Along your first interpretation, it's absolutely false. Consider this analogy "In the United States, the probability of winning the lottery is exactly 1 in 1. But for Bob, because, well, there Bob is with his winning ticket."

That's not how probability works. In fact there's a name for the kind of fallacy you are using here. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

It's when someone fires randomly at the side of a barn, and then draws bulls-eyes around the bullet-hole and calls himself a sharpshooter. Ie, you are using data that is not meant to give us proper probability.

That was my pro-tip, by the way.

[Darkstar]

\Did you come up with this yourself or did you copy and paste it?

Along your first interpretation, it's absolutely false. Consider this analogy "In the United States, the probability of winning the lottery is exactly 1 in 1. But for Bob, because, well, there Bob is with his winning ticket."

Wrong. This is only valid if Bob's ticket is the only ticket in existence.

[Mister Agenda]

Of course I would give up atheism if I knew it was irrational, that's why I gave up theism.

Is Vinny still making out like he's an atheist or has he stopped lying?

[Aegrus]

Of course I'd turn religious if religion suddenly had a great deal of concrete empirical evidence. I go where the proof is.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

\Did you come up with this yourself or did you copy and paste it?

Along your first interpretation, it's absolutely false. Consider this analogy "In the United States, the probability of winning the lottery is exactly 1 in 1. But for Bob, because, well, there Bob is with his winning ticket."

Wrong. This is only valid if Bob's ticket is the only ticket in existence.

EXACTLY!

The universe having a 1:1 chance of coming into being if this universe is the ONLY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE THAT CAN COME INTO BEING.

edit:

AND no other state of being can occur. Ie, there cannot even be a state of being where there isn't a universe. I don't think Rhythm's position meets this criteria.