If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Mr. Agenda

Theism is the opinion that at least one god or God is really real. It's not a philosophy.

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

Philosophical theism is the belief that deities exist (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in a personal God entirely without doctrine. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of a god's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

Adding the adjective 'philosophical' in front of it still doesn't make it a philosophy. Note that even just believing in a Creator has more involved with it than the vague 'some sort of deity' referred to above.

phi·los·o·phy/fəˈläsəfē/
noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

"No such explanation [ alternate non-fairy tale explanation] is required. If we have no explanation at all, it does not add a single nano-gram of weight to the odds that your position is correct. And mere theism explains nothing. It's not the kind of thing that is an explanation for anything, it's a binary positon on the issue of whether or not at least one god or God is real."--Mister Agenda

The problem is we all know what the alternative explanation is.

That's not what I would call a problem. We all know what the alternative explanation to parents putting presents under Christiams trees is, too.

If the universe and humans weren't purposely caused to come into existence intentionally by a creator designer, then we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that unintentionally caused the universe with the characteristics to cause stars, planets, solar systems and life to exist.

And that can't possibly be the explanation, because in that explanation, you're not the goal of existence.

I can appreciate why most atheists don't care to defend or advance that alternate explanation and many atheists will attempt to argue its a false dichotomy.

How many times should we have to repeat what cosmologists have to say? And if it's not a false dichotomy, that should be easy for you to prove.

Its the former explanation that explains nothing.

The former explanations explain 'how'. The latter 'explanation' is 'God did it'.

There is no rhyme or reason why mindless mechanistic things would happen to be as they are it just is.

There's no rhyme or reason why just the right God would exist to create this specific universe. Positing God as an answer to 'why is there a universe' begs the question of 'why is there a God?'.

"Then there is the person who throws up their hands and decides a debate with someone who doesn't assert vigrously that there is no God is impossible."--Mister Agenda

If the debate is Theism and I hold the affirmative position it would be lame to debate with someone who doesn't deny God exists just lacks that belief. I don't deny God exists either.

Argument from broken record, in stupefying denial of actually being involved in such a discussion presently.

"Respecting the other's view is precisely where you're failing."--Mister Agenda

You only have a non-position.

You only have a non-sequitur.

"If you want a formal debate, there's a place for that. The mods can set it up, and all you need is a volunteer to take 'the other side'. The holdup seems to be not only that you want the 'other side' to be 'God definitely does not exist' but that your own side isn't 'God definitely does exist'."--Mister Agenda

Not at all either side would be defending an opinion.

Hold the presses! Let's all be aghast at the idea that two people might debate over a difference of opinion.

If the debate were theism for or against the proposition I'd like the opposing view to opine theism is mistaken.

Neither theism nor atheism can be 'mistaken'. They are states of mind. A better way to phrase it would be that 'belief that a creator God is real' (since that is your ACTUAL belief) is not rationally justified.

Such a debate in this forum wouldn't be very interesting. Theists would come away theists, atheists atheists.

The purpose of debate isn't to persuade the convinced. It would be entirely pointless, given human nature, were that the only value in it.

"It depends on how they're defined. If everything they do is undetectable by science and they never leave verifiable evidence, then I merely lack belief in their existence. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be surprised if I found out either or both were real, as I regard them as more improbable than our sun going nova tomorrow (and our sun isn't the kind of star that ever goes nova)."--Mister Agenda

If you regarding something as improbable as our star going nova why wouldn't you state at least as an opinion it doesn't exist?

Because I'm persnickety that way. Why would you say it doesn't exist when it possibly could?

Why would you still give it some credibility by stating you lack belief?

If that's your bar for credibility, you really should raise it.

What does it take for you to stand up and say I don't believe such and such exists?

Been there and done that, multiple times, in this very thread, along with a number of other folks. What does it take for you to sit down and accept 'I don't believe such and such exists' as an answer?

After all its still an opinion when you state it a belief.

I don't believe God exists. I don't beleive lots of things that people have imagined to exist are real. It's a very plain thing to say. It's what I've said all along. You're the one intent on dissecting this very simple statement. Are you so turned around you don't even remember what it is you're complaining about?

"We don't believe God exists, but don't maintain that God necessarily does not exist."

[quote='Drew_2013' pid='898925' dateline='1426451611']
That's inherent to any opinion or belief is the concession you might be mistaken.

Tell that to Godschild.

Wouldn't you think I was being disingenuous if I came to this board and just said I lack belief in God's non-existence? I'm not saying God does exist mind you...I just lack belief in God's non-existence.

No skin off my nose.

"Your issue is both a made-up problem (there is no sound reason to believe the universe comes from a personal creator in the first place)."--Mister Agenda

I have in the past provided several lines of evidence (facts) that provide a sound reason to believe our existence is the result of a Creator but apparently you feel alternative explanations are just as unsound.

If your lines of argument were sound, it would be global philosophical news. I have never seen you present anything that didn't rest on a logical fallacy or the assumption that you must be right. It's assumed that you find your own arguments convincing, but it's arrogance to assume that they are therefore sound. Do you make a lot of arguments which you then follow by announcing that you're right? Good arguments stand on their own, bad arguments exist to be destroyed.

That's not true. I made a case citing 5 lines of evidence I argued favor the existence of a Creator. I can't prove I'm right anymore than you can prove I'm wrong. Theism is a belief not a fact.

And you don't see any dichotomy between acknowledging the existence of a Creator is neither provable nor disprovable with being convinced that your arguments are sound? If they were sound, they would prove the existence of a Creator.

And 20 years from now they will still be an insignificant minority.

We'll still be a small minority in the USA but demographic trends indicate we'll likely be twice the percentage of the American population that we are today. It's another example of the USA being 50 years behind Europe in cultural trends. The EU is about 20% atheist, which is where the USA will probably be in 50 years. Still a minority, but a significant one.

What you don't seem to grasp is that we don't 'recruit' atheists. Generally, forum members just like to talk about the various related topics. What usuaally happens is people reject the faith they were raised in for any of a wide variety of reasons (logical bogglement, hypocrisy or lack of compassion on the part of church members, etc.) and leave their church while still retaining a vague belief in some sort of Creator God. After a few years out of the bubble, some of these become enamored of some other denomination, reconcile with their old one, remain vaguely theist, or lose their belief in a God entirely and so become atheists. Everyone's story of 'deconversion' if they were ever believers in the first place is more or less different, but it's a common pattern. And it really has little to do with these internet arguments.

If you want to stop the tide of atheists, stop the tide of people leaving their churches.