Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a believer I still like to follow the musings of the "opposition". Occasionally I find positions with which I agree. Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief. I have posted this link as an invitation to discuss the points raised by the author who just so happens to be an atheist:

https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/

[Whateverist]

I vacillate. Because the concept of God varies so much I prefer to leave it on the lack of belief level. But truly, so long as his proponents insist on placing Him in the supernatural category, I definitely do not believe that sort of thing exists. I can't think of one single item which is obviously 'supernatural' so to file their god there is to file him in my round file for me. Throw in the extravagance of the description and I have two sufficient reasons to leave Him in the waste bin they selected. An omni-everything, inter-galactic watch maker responsible for every thing and every aspect of our experience .. really? Forget it. You can move me on up to the hard atheist rank for such a god.

On the other hand, if believers would just find a home for God in the natural world where His preoccupation with us would make some sense I could get on board. The God whose nearness people report in prayer could comfortably fit in the human psyche with plenty of incentive for giving Him His due. I would still maintain his as-if status but I would not be at all inclined to find fault with those who upped the literalness for such a god.

I suspect something like this will offer a sufficient resolution for some believers eventually. But I leave it to them to work that out for themselves. But an all everything god, that is a deal breaker which ends the conversation for me.

[abaris]

Yes, it's the best I can do.

What I know about the world, it's workings, it's very long history, doesn't compute with any scripted god. The best and only model I could come up with, if I felt the need for any belief, is a total neutral - for lack of a better word - divine entity, not caring one way or the other. But such a being wouldn't be in need of worship or belief, since it's neutral and uncaring.

Every god in history, every god still worshipped, just doesn't make sense in lights of what we know about humanity. and it's very short lifespan so far, doesn't lay the foundations for a humanocentric god. And that's not what I believe, that's the general scientific consensus. Scripted god, caring for humans, can only make sense if one is to believe in creationism.

[dyresand]

You the believer chad can believe in god but the one you believe in from a biblical stand point simply does not care about humanity.
But you can have a belief in a god who just simply observes but chooses not to interact that would more than likely fit in to the natural world
like Whatev was talking about. But yeah i agree with Whatev on that point as well. I am not a believer in a god simply being that god of the bible
is not all good, nor all loving but a just a contradiction and has so many powers that being himself would be a paradox. I hold no beliefs in the supernatural as there is no evidence for the supernatural at all.

[Minimalist]

It's the best I'm willing to do until you present some facts for discussion.

I'll wait but not too long.  I'm getting older.

[Chad32]

No, we could go through all the evidence that the stories of the bible, and Yahweh, and Jesus, are not much different than other stories, gods, and children of gods from long before judaism was born. We could pick apart details of the bible that are either just plain false, or so bad that Yahweh sounds like a hypocrite at the very least, and a madman at most. There are many things we can do aside from saying we don't believe in the book or the god, but all the other stuff is really more than we have to.

[Nay_Sayer]

Do you really care chad? From the collective sum of the mountain of diarrhea that comprises your posts, The answer here is no.

[Angrboda]

There's something wrong with our epistemology if we can't deny the existence of gods along the same grounds that we deny the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. Justified true belief leaves too many lacunae.

[Simon Moon]

As a believer I still like to follow the musings of the "opposition". Occasionally I find positions with which I agree. Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief. I have posted this link as an invitation to discuss the points raised by the author who just so happens to be an atheist:

https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/

There are specific gods that I do hold an active disbelief that they exist. Most of these, are gods that can not exist logically: i.e., with mutually exclusive attributes.

But when it comes to deist or pantheist types of gods, I am fine with the 'lack of belief' position. 

I will read the article later this evening.

EDIT: let me add, belatedly, that I do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that no gods exist. Although, there are certain gods that I am as close to absolutely certain as I can possibly be.

[KevinM1]

*sees masturbatory philosophical gobbledygook. backs away*