I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

---

I don't believe I'm ever going to win the lottery, but I could. Now if you tell me I am going to definitely win the lottery, me not believing it doesn't mean it won't happen, it just makes it unlikely because things like that generally don't happen. I tend not to believe in unlikely things, however, it doesn't stop me wondering. I can still hold the position of not believing, while pondering on whether something may or may not be possible. For instance, I can build a range of scenarios in my mind that will explain how I came to win the lottery - Everything from pure coincidence to increased odds from playing more, just in case. It's a fantastical story, but it could actually happen.

In my hypothetical (wishful thinking) scenario, if I were to win the lottery exactly how you foretold, do you know what I would say? "Would you believe it?" Funny turn of phrase that, isn't it? It's especially reserved for events/things that have very little chance of coming to pass or existing. This is the only rational position one can hold when it comes to Gods. If I were to win the lottery I could easily present the evidence of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with the part where you told me that I would win it, either - some would assign it to superstition, while others would accept it as a remarkable coincidence etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you can't pigeon hole non/belief into neat little packages. Like, for instance, I don't believe that my kids will tidy their rooms when I tell them to. When they surprise me and actually listen to a damn word I say, I don't start proclaiming miracles - sarcasm aside, of course.

I actually don't know who I'm typing this to, I just wanted to waffle a bit.

How do you know or assess the likelyhood of a god(s)? You seem to have assumed it possesses the same odds as winning the lottery. Why?

I never assumed anything. The point of my post was summed up in the last paragraph; where I pointed out that there are distinct differences between levels of disbelief. I put more stock in me winning the lottery because I have observed people winning the lottery, and have even won it myself on a smaller scale (Scratchcards). I put more stock in my kids surprising me and cleaning their room because sometimes kids do that. I consider the possibility of God(s), eliminate what they are likely not, then assign them to what they possibly are - either outside of natural laws as we know them; or, they don't exist at all.

---

In all three cases the level of disbelief I hold is based on what I can observe. As far as we know, as of today, God has never been observed. All we have to go by is ancient claims, which we have no way of verifying. When God makes an appearance, my level of belief will increase - after we eliminate optical illusion/trickery as an explanation, of course.

Fair enough. It seems that you're well on your way to materialism.

---

---

Calm down, why would you care what I think? Anyone can call anyone else anything. Just state your case. I've re-read your posts  and still think the same thing. I'm assuming the "moron" is Clive? If so, I agree with him. Which means we were disagreeing. So, do you think Clive was proposing that Evidence is a belief system, based on the post I've re-read and your other posts, it seems so.

What you've just said illustrates that some atheists are looking for some control in an uncertain universe and this is why you have an overdependence on science. "Why should we believe it unless it's not proven or tested" assumes that everything is testable/knowable, for in it's absense you assume it doesn't exist. Why do you assume this?

Frankly I don't give two shits what you think. It doesn't much bother me what anyone else thinks on this forum. But when someone else on here calls me disingenuous when I'm not being disingenuous, you better know damn well I'm going to have something to say about it.

Well done for stating the obvious btw. Your point is fucking what. If anyone needs to state their case it is you. I've said clearly in my last few posts on this thread, what my points are. You seem to just be telling me mine, and telling me you disagree. So fucking what. Make a case if you think I'm being disingenuous, don't just rudely assert it.

---

The start of your second paragraph is a straw man.

As for 'assuming'; I don't assume shit. This is the point you seem to miss. The whole point about testing and verifying things is that you don't assume, you prove.

Jesus christ a toddler can understand this concept.

Obviously you still don't get it, or are choosing not to. I'll give up.

---

We will continue to go round in circles as I see your position as belief based (this is what causes you to view me as self-righteous), yet you see yours as objective.

No, I care not whether you see my position as belief based(it may very well be). I view you as self-righteous, because you dove in here head first, without asking anyone as to what they actually believe, and then proceeded to claim that everyone else's postion is irrational without even knowing what that position is.

It matters not, however, because until you have anything worthwhile to say, this is my last response to you.

That's your call. You seem to imply that all atheists hold vastly different views, where they all make the same basic assumption of materialism. It all stems from here, diverges on some trivial points, but ends with the same conclusion.

I'm not remotely surprised by any of the responses I've received.