We're all athiests...

Originally posted by dryhump
Maybe someone can explain to me why a belief that there is no god is anymore rational than a belief there is.

Now that is a good question.

Originally posted by dryhump
I'm asking a serious question. I want to understand why atheists believe there belief is more rational than a theist"s.

Is belief in God an exception to the rule that you don't just believe in any old crap someone makes up without any valid evidence to back it up?

Originally posted by Agerg
Is belief in God an exception to the rule that you don't just believe in any old crap someone makes up without any valid evidence to back it up?

You are not answering the question. What is the evidence that atheists use to support their belief that there is no god?

Originally posted by dryhump
You are not answering the question. What is the evidence that atheists use to support their belief that there is no god?

be careful when you say 'god'. Do you mean any old god from the infinite set of all possible gods (whatever counts as possible) where those conceivable by humans are a little more than a tiny subset...
Or do you mean 'God', capitalised to emphasise it is one af the Abrahamic gods such as Allah or Yahweh?

If it is the latter case then my evidence there is no 'God' is the Bible itself, and if it is the former then I do not make the claim no 'god' exists, moreover that question of yours would be silly, because in the same way, what evidence do you have that leprechauns don't exist? is also silly

Originally posted by Agerg
be careful when you say 'god'. Do you mean any old god from the infinite set of all possible gods (whatever counts as possible) where those conceivable by humans are a little more than a tiny subset...
Or do you mean 'God', capitalised to emphasise it is one af the Abrahamic gods such as Allah or Yahweh?

If it is the latter case then my evidence there is ion would be meaningless because what evidence do you have that migglejibs don't exist?

I wasn't speaking specifically of any god. I don't understand how religious texts make the existence of god less likely. Hilarious about the leprechaun, btw, hadn't thought of that. This is a hairy question for me in all seriousness. The analogy that I keep thinking of is if you found a sandcastle on the beach, but there was no evidence of a builder, would you assume it appeared there by itself?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fair enough.

[b]Sounds good as a parting shot. Too bad you don't have any way of backing up your claim, or disqualifying mine.
It is quite easy to disqualify yours. Simply quote for us one sentence from "The selfish gene" then explain to me why you think that "spew of hatred and invective" is apparent in that sentence. You claimed it was in nearl ...[text shortened]... everything he stood for and is known for is exactly the opposite of your own philosophies.[/b]

From two of the other people thus-far discussed, thoughts on the importance of someone you so casually dismissed:

“According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else, and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science.”


Simply quote for us one sentence from "The selfish gene" then explain to me why you think that "spew of hatred and invective" is apparent in that sentence.
I’d say that his efforts in that book bordered more on his inability to tell whether he was coming or going, than obvious displays of hatred. On one hand he trumpets the genius of evolution for getting us this far, but on the other claims we ought not rely on the same to take us any further. Without any discernable reason or model, he opines that we ought to be generous and altruistic… for what reason, he never says.

Dawkins sniffs that the answer to man’s deep existential questions are found within and further that anything less (actually, more), is relegated to superstitious nonsense.

“We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems; Is there meaning to life? What are we for? What is Man?”
“The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.”

Here’s one from a more recent book, “River Out of Eden,” as his axe has become more apparent:

"Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not."

"Alternatively, if there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is he a sadist who enjoys spectator blood sports? Is he trying to avoid overpopulation in the mammals of Africa? Is he manuvering to maximize David Attenborough's television ratings?”

You claimed it was in nearly every sentence and you have a whole book to look through.
Agendas have a funny way of leaking out, huh.

What amazes me after looking up Galileo on Wikipedia is that he seems that everything he stood for and is known for is exactly the opposite of your own philosophies.
You’ll have to do better than this. For one, I have never been part of the Roman Catholic church, nor have I ever been beholden to one person as the be-all/end-all of authority. Other than that distinction, I cannot think of even one area where I don’t see to eye-to-eye with the man… other than in those areas where I just ain’t tall enough.

Originally posted by dryhump
I wasn't speaking specifically of any god.

Then I say you would find few people who would say there exists no 'god' where it is understood on both parts that this 'god' is in no way specified. More they need not invoke such a concept any more than they would invoke anything else they would whimsically dream up on the spot.

When most people say there is no god, they generally mean a Christian's, Muslim's etc... magic friend: 'God'

Originally posted by dryhump
Maybe someone can explain to me why a belief that there is no god is anymore rational than a belief there is.

Any existential hypothesis ( such as there exists a god etc) that has no evidence either for or against it should be regarded as having a vanishingly small probability of being true.
If this was not the case then you must conclude that there’s a credible chance of there being a Santa and there being an invisible elephant floating about in the sky above you right now etc because we have no evidence for or against these two existential hypothesis 😛
That’s why a disbelief that there is a god is more rational than a belief there is a god.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Please elaborate upon your definition of "polytheist" and how you propose to reconcile often mutually exclusive religious concepts.

a polythiest believes in a pantheon of Gods, or perhaps believes in all Gods. If it is plausable that one God exists, it is equally plausible that many Gods exist.

Originally posted by dryhump
You are not answering the question. What is the evidence that atheists use to support their belief that there is no god?

Our belief begins in our early childhood socialization; or rather our ability to believe. The growth in athieism world wide can in part be attributed to parents failure to socialize their children with the ability to believe.

Originally posted by duecer
Our belief begins in our early childhood socialization; or rather our ability to believe. The growth in athieism world wide can in part be attributed to parents failure to socialize their children with the ability to believe.

Is “socialize their children with the ability to believe” just a very polite way of saying “religious brainwashing”?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Any existential hypothesis ( such as there exists a god etc) that has no evidence either for or against it should be regarded as having a vanishingly small probability of being true.
If this was not the case then you must conclude that there’s a credible chance of there being a Santa and there being an invisible elephant floating about in the sky a ...[text shortened]... is 😛
That’s why a disbelief that there is a god is more rational than a belief there is a god.

Much depends on how you define "evidence". Christians would say that there is plenty of evidence , but Atheists do not accept it because they are either looking for something conclusive or scientific. That's fine , but to a Christian there is lots of evidence , you just need the eyes to see it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Much depends on how you define "evidence". Christians would say that there is plenty of evidence , but Atheists do not accept it because they are either looking for something conclusive or scientific. That's fine , but to a Christian there is lots of evidence , you just need the eyes to see it.

Evidence: Anything used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion. (TheSkipper dictionary)

Demonstrate the truth of an assertion...do you suppose it would be helpful if this evidence could demonstrate this truth to people other than yourself, and the people already inclined to believe you?

In other words, evidence that only you can see is not particularly good evidence, and deserves to be called evidence at all by only the slimest of margins.

Originally posted by dryhump
I'm asking a serious question. I want to understand why atheists believe there belief is more rational than a theist"s.

And why you think that I am joking?

We always progress when we face the Problem. "No Problem" means "no Evolution and no Progress".
But what is the Problem that arises if we deny the existence of "God"?

My opinion is that there is not the slightest problem arising. All in all, God cannot have any tangible effect on the world; if you disagree you have to use Science or Philosophy in order to convince me –not Theology, that is😵

Originally posted by black beetle
And why you think that I am joking?

We always progress when we face the Problem. "No Problem" means "no Evolution and no Progress".
But what is the Problem that arises if we deny the existence of "God"?

My opinion is that there is not the slightest problem arising. All in all, God cannot have any tangible effect on the world; if you disagree you have to use Science or Philosophy in order to convince me –not Theology, that is😵

I disagree that no problem arises from denying the existence of god. I think you only need to look around at all the problems the world is facing today to see evidence of this. However, you probably consider that a theological argument. I guess the question that has to be answered is was the universe created on purpose or at random? I contend that people who say the universe is just a random occurence are making a much bigger leap of faith than a person who says it was created on purpose.