If I were an Atheist

[downbeatplumb]

Whether there is a difference depends on whether the person who states there is no God is making a fact claim or just stating an opinion. If an opinion built into that is the possibility they are wrong and God may in fact exist. If you claim not to believe in the existence of God it would be presumably because you don't believe God exists. I'm pretty confident no one claims to not believe in God yet thinks God does exist.

You are wilfully misrepresenting the position of others to further your argument.

You have changed our "we don't believe in god" to "we believe god does not exist".

This is attempting to shift the burden of proof and thinking we won't notice.

I've explained previously the difference in the positions but I see you have decided to ignore mine and everyone elses attempts to set you right.

You aren't here for a debate or discussion but to further your agenda for your own gratification.

And relax.

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10

Better now.

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

I know my dog has free-will (In some capacity that allows options beyond instinctive reaction). When I have food on the table, he sits close by and starts staring at me. I tell him to "go look in your dish", and he goes. He walks up, looks in his dish, and then comes back to the table without eating a bite. If he was entirely behold unto his desire to eat and satisfy hunger, he would have eaten what was in his dish. Instead, he, dare I say "chooses" to wait for the off chance of something different. It's only when the last dish has been cleaned and put away that he'll go back and eat his own food but, not always. Some times he'll just go lay down somewhere. Now I don't have a clue what that means, but he's defeinitely deciding something when he turns away from that dish, and I certainly didn't force him.

---

A table-scrap or two never hurt, man -- c'mon, have a heart.

Yes, I am your dog's lawyer.

He wouldn't be sitting there if he didn't know there was a chance to score. Plus, my son practically splits his food with him. Lol

---

I know my dog has free-will (In some capacity that allows options beyond instinctive reaction). When I have food on the table, he sits close by and starts staring at me. I tell him to "go look in your dish", and he goes. He walks up, looks in his dish, and then comes back to the table without eating a bite. If he was entirely behold unto his desire to eat and satisfy hunger, he would have eaten what was in his dish. Instead, he, dare I say "chooses" to wait for the off chance of something different.

Brian Hare currently is one of the leads into the dog mind. There are a bunch of videos up on youtube showing his work and some presentations. Theres also a center that studies dog cognition in Vienna. It's funny that dogs are with us for tens of thousands of years, but science only started to study their mind within the last decade or so.

Very cool! I'm very fascinated by the dog mind. Thanks!

[The Reality Salesman01]

Rhythm, where ya at? I know you have some dog knowledge to share! Cmon...

[Brian37]

Well, I was once an atheist...and the beautiful atheists I've met along my journey in faith, is an experience I'd never trade. Not everyone can emotionally handle atheism. I was one such person. No one can prove that a deity exists, but it brings me some sense of comfort to know one just might exist. Deism resonates with me now, more than theism.

Everyone has to find their own way.

I thought Thomas Jefferson was blasphemous for his time. Lots of people credit Madison for the First Amendment, but Madison modeled it after Jefferson's Virginia Religious Freedom act. Jefferson was a deist too. But I would tell him if he were alive today he is as full of it as any standard old myth. Jefferson above all else would have rather someone tell him honestly what they think than silence any criticism.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson.

Having said that, a generic god still suffers the same problems as a God from a holy book. It suffers both a problem of morality and infinite regress.

If you rightfully accept the rejection, for example, Thor filling in as the explanation for lightening, and you rightfully reject the idea that an ocean god named Poseidon is needed to fill in as an explanation for hurricanes, what makes you think any type of caring or uncaring generic god is needed to start all this?

"Stephen Hawking" A god is not required.

Ocham's razor is a huge principle that still applies in modern science. The principle is out of many postulated attempts to fill in gaps of knowledge, the one with the least or no extra baggage is going to be your most likely answer.

So which would seem to explain nature more simply?

1. A god or God exists?

Or

2. Humans make them up because they like the idea?

I don't doubt you if you say you once did not believe. I do doubt that you had all the understanding of science or human psychology that would arm you with the knowledge of how easily humans can have false perceptions. You need to consider that even a generic idea of a god is still your own reflection of you and your desire to be immortal.

I find the natural world much more inspiring. Like the atoms in me being of stardust, and even the stars themselves and all the material in the universe all starting in the same dense spot. But I see nothing "designed" in all this. It certainly is not comforting to humans, but it is reality.

I don't lose my sense of awe knowing I am a mere blip. I still find life worth living. I still value human rights as much as I value my family and friends. I simply don't fill in the gap with invisible characters generic or specific.

[Whateverist]

Well, I was once an atheist...and the beautiful atheists I've met along my journey in faith, is an experience I'd never trade. Not everyone can emotionally handle atheism. I was one such person. No one can prove that a deity exists, but it brings me some sense of comfort to know one just might exist. Deism resonates with me now, more than theism.

Everyone has to find their own way.

So which would seem to explain nature more simply?

1. A god or God exists?

Or

2. Humans make them up because they like the idea?

I hope you don't consider these two options all encompassing. Between humans making gods up to make themselves happy and the actual existence of a literal god, there are other possibilities.

A third alternative that strikes me as most obvious is that the complexity of the mind can lead one to suspect there is another consciousness guiding them. If that is right, then they didn't set out to create a god: they discovered one (though in most cases it is probably more accurate to say they confirmed that which they were conditioned to expect). That would mean you don't have to be engaged in deliberate subterfuge to be a believer and your profession of faith can be entirely sincere.

That doesn't mean belief in a literal god is justified, but it certainly is understandable.

I don't doubt you if you say you once did not believe. I do doubt that you had all the understanding of science or human psychology that would arm you with the knowledge of how easily humans can have false perceptions. You need to consider that even a generic idea of a god is still your own reflection of you and your desire to be immortal.

It appears you think that belief in the non-existence of gods is something everyone should work hard to maintain. That is fine for you, but it doesn't seem like a genuine attempt at open minded inquiry.

I find the natural world much more inspiring. Like the atoms in me being of stardust, and even the stars themselves and all the material in the universe all starting in the same dense spot. But I see nothing "designed" in all this. It certainly is not comforting to humans, but it is reality.

I don't lose my sense of awe knowing I am a mere blip. I still find life worth living. I still value human rights as much as I value my family and friends. I simply don't fill in the gap with invisible characters generic or specific.

All of which is to say that some people at least find meaning and fulfillment in a world devoid of gods. Me too. But there isn't anything I believe which I feel strongly everyone would be better off to adopt as well. I wasn't a missionary/proselytizer as a 'Christian' and I won't be one now. The world I choose to live in is one in which adults are assumed to be my peers, capable of making their own choices. I start off assuming their value judgments are as valid for them as mine are for me, since only they know what matters from their point of view.

I feel no sense of loss for Deidre having chosen to return to her Christain roots. Nor do I think she is worse off for having made that decision. If every person raised in a religion would go 'walk about' for a while during which they questioned much and explored other points of view, I suspect the world would be a better place. If they then return to their roots to let their discoveries infiltrate and elevate those beliefs, it seems like a great outcome to me.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Someone is probably going to respond it could be some reason we haven't even thought of or could articulate but whose going to argue in favor of a position we can't articulate or fathom?

YOU! You are doing that! You are arguing for a kind of entity that cannot be fathomed because it does NOT correlate with reality. THIS reality is NOT a host to any such a mind that poofs external physical objects into existence, and yet, you seem completely oblivious to that fact.

In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

In Criminal law, the subjects in question correlate with reality and if any good case is going to be put forth, it better be based on evidence that correlates with reality as well. In criminal law, every aspect involved is grounded in nature. Suppose I was on trial for murder and my alibi was that I was out playing golf with Elvis in a different Galaxy to celebrate my best Angel Friends birthday.

There's no way anyone would believe me, and my claim would not be more likely if they couldn't prove exactly where I was actually at.

You need to start thinking about the details here translate to this conversation, because that's exactly the kind of thing you are doing. Ignoring that this is never the sort of thing that could even be tried, If this were a criminal case, and the origin of the universe was on trial, and your case, which is based entirely on a proposition that has no physical grounding in the shared experience of reality, it would be and IS being received the same way. You may have decided that a "mind" sounds good to you, and it may be your opinion that such a thing is the best idea you've heard, but no jury could possibly rule in favor of such an argument because there is a fatal flaw in the proposition you've put forward...what evidence do you have to believe that any such mind A) exists and B) made this universe? So far, none. It's a faith claim and it's an argument from ignorance.

This is why the argument there is no evidence in support of theism isn't just a bad argument...its false.

Says the guy who doesn't have evidence...
Good thing out legal system doesn't share your opinion.

Why is it critical? Because if in fact there is no evidence of theism, theistic belief can be marginalized as nothing more than a faith claim.

Bingo. Guess what? That's exactly what you have...a faith claim.

[Ruslana88]

Atheism isn't a growing movement because it isn't a movement at all. It's a belief. Not organized and not well funded. It is growing however. Just about every poll backs that up.

i would add, that it is not even belief, it is just true nature of things. Like phisical laws.

[Whateverist]

Someone is probably going to respond it could be some reason we haven't even thought of or could articulate but whose going to argue in favor of a position we can't articulate or fathom?

YOU! You are doing that! You are arguing for a kind of entity that cannot be fathomed because it does NOT correlate with reality. THIS reality is NOT a host to any such a mind that poofs external physical objects into existence, and yet, you seem completely oblivious to that fact.

Obviously. Just amazing that he can't see this too.

This is why the argument there is no evidence in support of theism isn't just a bad argument...its false.

Says the guy who doesn't have evidence...
Good thing out legal system doesn't share your opinion.

There being no evidence in favor of god belief isn't an argument, it's a finding. Atheism is not an argument. It is merely the position of not having been persuaded to adopt god belief. If there is a reason, I haven't found it. That doesn't mean I have any position to defend or case to make that revolves around the existential status of gods. I simply have no god agenda. For me, atheism is getting on with my life without regard to the status of gods.

Why is it critical? Because if in fact there is no evidence of theism, theistic belief can be marginalized as nothing more than a faith claim.

Bingo. Guess what? That's exactly what you have...a faith claim.

That or just such a morass of misunderstanding and justifications that he can no longer see a difference between his own muddled perspective and objective reality.

[The Reality Salesman01]

This!

---

YOU! You are doing that! You are arguing for a kind of entity that cannot be fathomed because it does NOT correlate with reality. THIS reality is NOT a host to any such a mind that poofs external physical objects into existence, and yet, you seem completely oblivious to that fact.

Obviously. Just amazing that he can't see this too.

Says the guy who doesn't have evidence...
Good thing out legal system doesn't share your opinion.

There being no evidence in favor of god belief isn't an argument, it's a finding. Atheism is not an argument. It is merely the position of not having been persuaded to adopt god belief. If there is a reason, I haven't found it. That doesn't mean I have any position to defend or case to make that revolves around the existential status of gods. I simply have no god agenda. For me, atheism is getting on with my life without regard to the status of gods.

Bingo. Guess what? That's exactly what you have...a faith claim.

That or just such a morass of misunderstanding and justifications that he can no longer see a difference between his own muddled perspective and objective reality.

---

[Ravenshire]

You aren't here for a debate or discussion but to further your agenda for your own gratification.

Of note, he has completely ignored detailed explanations of exactly what the differences are.