"There is a reason most sane lucid adults...do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans... It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence."
Hardly; at most it's the best explanation for someone of a certain educational level or mindset. It's especially great if one is frightened, lazy and ignorant. "God" isn't an answer; it's an excuse for not asking questions.
"Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence."
No, we prefer that definition because that's what it is. Defining atheism your way is an attempt to set up a Straw Man argument. I don't say there's no God. I say I don't believe in a God. I'm not making any statement that requires proof. I know of a certainty what I believe. I extend you the same courtesy. If, on the other hand, you unequivocally state "There is a God," you might well be asked for evidence.
"We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith."
Natural forces exist. No faith is involved in my reliance on gravity. It hasn't failed me yet, so I believe in it. At any rate, it's not our job to persuade you of anything. Speaking for myself, I don't care what you believe. I only care if your belief infringes on my life, rights or freedoms, or denigrates valid science without an equally valid viewpoint. And there's nothing wrong with taking some things "on faith," as you put it---that's another of your Straw Man arguments. The bigger and more outrageous the claim (such as an all-powerful invisible being), though, the less we can "take it on faith." I have a quarter in my pocket. I also own the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. Which do you believe?
I've no interest in addressing whatever gibberish you lifted from Wikipedia (a pretty lame source for any serious discussion of anything); a quick glance indicated it was a specious tangent. You don't even seem to accurately understand the atheist's viewpoint, so how can you pretend to dispute it? I suggest you read Bertrand Russell's "Unpopular Essays," and "Why I'm Not a Christian," plus Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" and Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" for a primer foundation on the relevant subjects.
Moderators please note: I'm not Russell, Sagan or Dawkins, so this isn't spam. He doesn't have to buy them, he can get them from the library, so this isn't a commercial announcement.
Hardly; at most it's the best explanation for someone of a certain educational level or mindset. It's especially great if one is frightened, lazy and ignorant. "God" isn't an answer; it's an excuse for not asking questions.
"Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence."
No, we prefer that definition because that's what it is. Defining atheism your way is an attempt to set up a Straw Man argument. I don't say there's no God. I say I don't believe in a God. I'm not making any statement that requires proof. I know of a certainty what I believe. I extend you the same courtesy. If, on the other hand, you unequivocally state "There is a God," you might well be asked for evidence.
"We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith."
Natural forces exist. No faith is involved in my reliance on gravity. It hasn't failed me yet, so I believe in it. At any rate, it's not our job to persuade you of anything. Speaking for myself, I don't care what you believe. I only care if your belief infringes on my life, rights or freedoms, or denigrates valid science without an equally valid viewpoint. And there's nothing wrong with taking some things "on faith," as you put it---that's another of your Straw Man arguments. The bigger and more outrageous the claim (such as an all-powerful invisible being), though, the less we can "take it on faith." I have a quarter in my pocket. I also own the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. Which do you believe?
I've no interest in addressing whatever gibberish you lifted from Wikipedia (a pretty lame source for any serious discussion of anything); a quick glance indicated it was a specious tangent. You don't even seem to accurately understand the atheist's viewpoint, so how can you pretend to dispute it? I suggest you read Bertrand Russell's "Unpopular Essays," and "Why I'm Not a Christian," plus Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" and Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" for a primer foundation on the relevant subjects.
Moderators please note: I'm not Russell, Sagan or Dawkins, so this isn't spam. He doesn't have to buy them, he can get them from the library, so this isn't a commercial announcement.
