Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Jenny A]

Once again.  If I ask why you do not believe god claims your answer would be unjustified in saying because.  So the common answer has been "lack of proof".  To which my response is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite you should not believe any claims which fail to meet that standard of proof. Then when asked what standard of proof the general answer is direct explicit empirical proof.  To which I respond that only tautologies shall meet such a level of proof.  Nothing else reasoned or experienced will meet such a threshold of proof.

I recognize that the intention of Atheism is not to disbelieve everything.  The intention is to only disbelieve god.  But the result of the argument upon which the disbelief is founded (lack of proof) has the result of requiring disbelief in everything in order to avoid hypocrisy or bias.

First of all, not believing in god is not necessarily an intention. I never have believed in god, at least not that I can remember.  What I do remember is sitting in church during a sermon based on Cain and Abel, and thinking "why do grown-ups believe this?"

I don't go around subjecting all possible beliefs to a hard core standard of proof.  I don't think this is hypocritical, just practical.  The amount of proof I require before believing a claim has to do with the likelihood of the claim, and it's importance.

If a friend tells me she had lunch yesterday I don't subject that to excruciating proof.  It's common, and relatively unimportant.  Other claims are generally proved by daily experience over and over: the electric appliances in my house work, bridges stay up, the net works and so on.  Other claims are tested by adversaries.  Most of science fits this catagory.

Some claims are statistically unlikely, but always happen to someone somewhere.  Winning the lottery fits this pattern.  If my neighbor claims to have won, I'm likely to believe them.  He wants to sell me his ticket, I'm going to do some investigation.

Other claims lack evidence:  unicorns, UFOs, elves, etc.  I don't believe those.

Other claims not only lack evidence  contradict general experience.  Ghosts, miracles, esp, and god fit in this catagory.  These are extraordinary claims and I would require extraordinary proof in order to believe in them.  But the proof offered is less than that I'd accept before I'd buy my neighbor's winning lottery ticket.  So, I don't believe them.

There are even more unlikely claims.  These are extraordinary claims for which the proponents suggest you have to be in the right frame of mind, or can't be skeptical about or the evidence will hide.  God, messages from the dead, and ghosts or frequent examples.  These are untenable.

Finally there are claims for which the proponents simply say proof is impossible, you must have faith.  This is the most absurd of all.  God is often offered in this light.

I recognize that the intention of Atheism is not to disbelieve everything.  The intention is to only disbelieve god.  But the result of the argument upon which the disbelief is founded (lack of proof) has the result of requiring disbelief in everything in order to avoid hypocrisy or bias.

It's not an intention, it a state of being. I don't believe and never have.  It takes no intent or effort.  Faith takes intent.

While many theists would like to use the argument of intelligent design to prove the existence of god, the argument becomes untenable as they are not justified at stopping at the point they intended to reach.  (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god)  They, just as atheist, are to follow the argument to its logical conclusion (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god.  God is order as if made by something that is intelligent god of god,  god of god is order as if made by something more intelligent god of god of god, etcetera).  Thereby the argument is invalid due to infinite regression.

Indeed.  Not to mention that the universe doesn't really appear to be intelligently designed in the first place.  

If I am not to let the theist stop when they want (and believe me I will not) than I am not to let the atheist stop when they want.  Otherwise I am permitted only to consider the information they provide in the manner they provide it to the extend that they provide.  Needless to say each is going to exclude by manner and extent what does not favor their argument .

It isn't really an argument until someone offers some proof of god.  Until that point, which is where we are now, it's just a naked claim that god exists.