What is Atheism?

[Mister Agenda]

It must be really convenient for you to claim that you know what people's motivations are better than they do themselves.

Incredulity is about not finding the belief in God credible. That can be as simple as raising an objection. Once an objection has been raised then the person making that objection has expressed a belief as to why he or she will not accept the proposition that God exists.

Otherwise I am no different from anyone else. I make inferences about people motivations from their behaviors. If someone expressly ridicules Christians (irrational, delusional, etc.) and mocks their beliefs (sky daddy, zombie Jew, etc.) then it is reasonable to infer he or she doesn't simply 'lack belief.' Likewise, if someone openly objects to biblical prohibitions of certain sexual activities, then it is reasonable to infer that he or she is inclined to reject the Christian faith because he or she tacitly approves of them, if not for themselves, then for everyone else. Not all atheists are like that, obviously, but you cannot deny that there are more than a few who are like that. Those are the people I'm talking about. If the shoe fits wear it.

Of  course you are free to speculate about my motives. I doubt I have ever given any indication that I use faith as a psychological crutch; although, that is clearly the case for some believers. As for me, I was once a perfectly content atheist.

We've already had this conversation, and I'm sure you've had it with others. I don't find the claim that God exists credible. That doesn't mean it isn't true. I have explained why I do not accept the claim, and that is not the same thing as saying I will not. There would be no atheist to theist conversions if that were true.

I would be tempted to mock someone who believed magical leprechauns are real, but having to actually deal with a magical leprechaun would set me straight if the experience was convincing enough. And it would still be understandable for someone to mock me for my subsequent belief in magical leprechauns if all I brought to support my contention was a story. Not because I was lying (in this scenario, I'm absolutely certain that magical leprechauns are real), but because I'm foolish enough to expect reasonable people to believe my account of something so fantastic when all I have is a story and 'you can't prove leprechauns aren't real!' People who are interested might suggest I was hallucinating or having some kind of internal brain experience, and if I don't acknowledge that's at least possible, I'm presenting myself as some kind of supreme witness who uniquely can't possibly be fooled by something going on in my brain. I'm not foolish for having the experience or believing it's real, I'm foolish for thinking I can prove it based on testimony alone. I might think people really ought to be nicer to me about it, but I'm still the one being foolish in this scenario. It would be different if I could get the leprechaun to show up and do some magic under controlled conditions, then it would be the people who refused to accept the findings who would be foolish.

A. Suppose I say the sexual prescriptions of the Bible make no sense apart from it being presented as God's will. C. You conclude that's why I don't believe in Christianity. You don't see a missing step there?

The shoe doesn't fit me, and it fitting someone else who shares some opinion with me is no justification for trying to fit it on all of us. Some theists like orgies, that's clearly the case for some believers. What remarks about theists does that justify me making? That when some of them say they're not into orgies I can dismiss that because I know they secretly are?

I was once a perfectly content theist. So what? That qualifies me to tell you your motivations over your objections?

---

Parsimony is not adding entities to an explanation that aren't required. Your burden is to show that reality with 'God exists' is more parsimonious than reality without 'God exists'. Just saying that it's more parsimonious doesn't make it so.

To dismiss all the things for which God would be responsible, atheists propose a wide range of unconnected alternatives:delusions, coincidence, confirmation bias, emergent properties, niche fitness, multiverses, brute facts,...the list is endless. I have one - a necessary being that is fully in act and whose existence is identical to its essence.

For an entity to be more parsimonious, it has to actually exist. The whole point of parsimony is not to introduce entities that haven't been established as existing. The way you're using the word 'parsimonious', the most parsimonious explanation for presents under the trees on Christmas is Santa. To dismiss all the things for which Santa would be responsible, a-Santa-ists propose a wide range of unconnected alternatives: fairy tales, parental conspiracies, childish credulity, child behavior management, NORAD faking Santa showing up on radar, Santa's feats being physically impossible, Santa photos being of imposters...the list is endless. I have one-a jolly elf with magic powers who's existence is identical to the spirit of giving.