How to select which supernatural to believe?

[Jehanne]

That being said, I continue to periodically apply myself to furthering my work on a deductive disproof of the Christian god.

By your historical reasoning (or, lack of), Jesus of Nazareth could be the omnipotent God, or, for that matter, the Donation of Constantine could be completely authentic.

[Angrboda]

That being said, I continue to periodically apply myself to furthering my work on a deductive disproof of the Christian god.

By your historical reasoning (or, lack of), Jesus of Nazareth could be the omnipotent God, or, for that matter, the Donation of Constantine could be completely authentic.

Yeah, still not gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a point, hun.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Half of AF atheists do not even believe numbers are real and the other half are Prryho-like skeptics so getting those members to acknowledge the reality of something like the God of Classical theism seems unlikely.

We're not a monolithic group here. I find it incomprehensible that any atheist could be in Category 7 (absolutely certain that there is no God), which caused the late Professor Carl Sagan to state, "By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

I was surprised by the poll of AF members in which 13.8% of the members considered themselves theists. I just do not see their activity. That said, I full well know that atheists, as a category, run the gambit. Yet, that is not my experience of the more active atheist members who IMHO do share a common set of assumptions. The first category reject theism for ontological reasons, i.e. taking the anti-realist position with respect to intellectual objects. The second category of atheist rejects theism for epistemilogical reasons, i.e. asserting foundationalism as the only valid approach for warranting belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that intellectual objects are all real in at least one sense, and can at least be real in others. I do think that foundationalism has merit, but that hardly seems like a difference between myself and a god botherer..who also believes that their beliefs fit that very same foundationalist structure.

Why else would they purport to have logical arguments for it?

You might prefer to believe that everyone who disagrees with you about gods existence, or even the impossibility of knowledge about gods existence....is an antirealist, or insists on some different form or type of knowledge - but maybe you just aren't making a good case? Maybe there is no good case for, and there are many good cases against...and it's not really a you problem? Generously, I assume it's the latter.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry, I forgot to mention trolls.

[Jehanne]

By your historical reasoning (or, lack of), Jesus of Nazareth could be the omnipotent God, or, for that matter, the Donation of Constantine could be completely authentic.

Yeah, still not gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a point, hun.

That you would, apparently, claim that no evidence for God is sufficient in the present while claiming that we are incapable of dismissing any evidences given for God in the past?

[Jehanne]

We're not a monolithic group here. I find it incomprehensible that any atheist could be in Category 7 (absolutely certain that there is no God), which caused the late Professor Carl Sagan to state, "By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

I was surprised by the poll of AF members in which 13.8% of the members considered themselves theists. I just do not see their activity. That said, I full well know that atheists, as a category, run the gambit. Yet, that is not my experience of the more active atheist members who IMHO do share a common set of assumptions. The first category reject theism for ontological reasons, i.e. taking the anti-realist position with respect to intellectual objects. The second category of atheist rejects theism for epistemilogical reasons, i.e. asserting foundationalism as the only valid approach for warranting belief.

The categories for rejecting the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, still not gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a point, hun.

That you would, apparently, claim that no evidence for God is sufficient in the present while claiming that we are incapable of dismissing any evidences given for God in the past?

Rearrange the objects and consider your previous comment about it being inconceivable to be a so-called hard atheist.  That even though we can dismiss any evidences for god given in the past, no evidence is sufficient in the present to resolve the claim of a theistic gods existence.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, still not gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a point, hun.

That you would, apparently, claim that no evidence for God is sufficient in the present while claiming that we are incapable of dismissing any evidences given for God in the past?

Yeah, sorry, that doesn't square with what I posted at the beginning of this thread.

[Angrboda]

Sorry, I forgot to mention trolls.

Thanks. It's nice to know I'm in your thoughts.