If I were an Atheist

[Ravenshire]

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.

Since you continue to make up your own definitions and/or twist them to fit your pre-conceived notions, don't be surprised when people fail to engage your disingenuous arguments.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This isn't a competition, drew. Demographics of religion and atheism differ wildly depending on the part of the world you're looking at or indeed the state.

Are 50% of the English and Welsh population thus insiginifcant? Are large swathes of Northern America, Northern and western euorpe? Not even counting places like China?

I think your sample is in error, don't you? These entire debates on atheism vs theism always gloss over the fact that the overwhelming vast majority of other theists would see the religions of other theists die and their followers either converted or burned. So homogenising them is always very odd.

But regardless, as rhythm posits, it's a non-issue. What is an issue is your comments about rejection and non/lack of-belief. I can still firmly reject every god hypothesis that's ever been put to me and be an agnostic atheist towards the general concept of a deity.

The christian God for example, and the tens of thousands of varieties of it, are easily rejected as self-refuting. But I can't say the same for every god hypothesis because I haven't heard them all, or seen the evidence.

[Whateverist]

Every time I read this thread's title I start humming the theme from Fiddler on the Roof: "If I were an atheist, dada dedle dedle dum.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

If so...so what,......and do you really think that it would be on account of any of the gripes you posted, if that were the case? I doubt that very much.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I read the first couple paragraphs of the OP, and decided that there was no way I had the patience to entertain that degree of ignorance.

---

It's hard to do, but I've recently begun to exercise such self-restraint while communicating with my ex-wife. There really is so reasoning with insanity, and there's no point in trying.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Every time I read this thread's title I start humming the theme from Fiddler on the Roof: "If I were an atheist, dada dedle dedle dum.

I think of the old folk standard, "If I Had a Hammer":

If I were an atheist,
I'd athie in the morning
I'd athie in the evenin'
all over the land.

---

The problem is we all know what the alternative explanation is. 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. 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. Its the former explanation that explains nothing. There is no rhyme or reason why mindless mechanistic things would happen to be as they are it just is.

I will be happy to explain it to you, and defend its explanatory power; but the fact is, it is a hypothesis, and the difference between an atheist proposing a mechanistic beginning (such as myself) and a theist such as yourself is that while I'm happy to admit I might be wrong, under no circumstances are you permitted to entertain that thought by your own dogma. That is the result of you fetishizing faith instead of knowledge.

The upshot is that your position is brittle and impossible to defend, because at any point where what you claim is disposed of by facts (and those are many!), those cracks spread, because you have no systematized method of improving your faith -- you can only repeatedly remind the audience that "you gotta believe!" as if that will fix everything. In contrast, the scientific method has done wonders in unraveling the arcana of the Universe, and by dint of two procedural points (peer review and burden of evidence), it greatly reduces the possibility of a new idea being faked. It thereby remains open to expanded knowledge, while at the same time filtering out bullshit. In contrast to that, religion filters out any new process that is against the inherited dogma by complete rejection (unless, of course, social pressures demand it! -- but at that point, it is still much more likely to be wrong, because it has no process of fact-checking.)

You can gild the lily all you want, but there is no religious claim about the divine that has any concrete evidence. Zero. None.

You can say all you want that your little god created this Universe, but until you bring firm evidence (not argumentation, data), all you have is argumentum ex culo. That is all you have.

[The Reality Salesman01]

"Not gaining traction"? Lol...who gives a rats ass? It didn't matter when round earth was a minority opinion either.

[robvalue]

I could start an underground breeding program, and produce hundreds of thousands of people with the sole intent of getting them to not believe in christianity. Would that be useful evidence against the truth of christianity?

[The Reality Salesman01]

If I were a Theist...

I'd shut the fuck up.

Rather than reflexively opening my mouth to defend my beliefs, I'd start privately reflecting on them. I'd realize that nobody would complain about me practicing my personal belief as long as I practiced it in such a way that respected others and their right to be free of it. I would see that while I may not view the Bible as an infallible scientific textbook, it's clear that many others do, and that Atheists are not mad at me for reading my bible, they're mad because there are clearly millions of idiots who would like it taught in classrooms as an alternative to modern scientific knowledge and that is a huge problem in the 21st century. I would realize that most Atheist are sick of being treated like 2nd class citizens who are morally inferior simply because they don't derive their morality from one really old book or another. I would start learning about the critical habits of mind. I would learn to think critically so that I could have productive and honest conversations about the differences in views between Atheists and Theists. I would take the Atheists arguments head on and not shy away from a single tough question. If shown that one of my beliefs was flawed or fallaciously supported, I would revise it or reject it and adjust my approach in both thought and dialogue accordingly. Come to think of it...


I USED TO BE a Theist, and by doing the above, I reasoned my way to Atheism. I've had the other shoe on my foot and the error in your ways couldn't be more transparent from my perspective. My advice to Theists, start with the first step above, and slowly work your way down, and yes...you're gonna have to work.

[Mudhammam]

I would see that while I may not view the Bible as an infallible scientific textbook, it's clear that many others do, and that Atheists are not mad at me for reading my bible, they're mad because there are clearly millions of idiots who would like it taught in classrooms as an alternative to modern scientific knowledge and that is a huge problem in the 21st century.

This is what I don't understand. Where are all of the "moderate" or "rational" theists who say, "I disagree with you on a lot of things but I share your concerns over this soil of mass stupidity that people who claim my religion have fertilized."

If I were ever to become a theist again I can only imagine that my affinities would remain where they do now as an atheist.