Indeed I am.
It is my contention that both the atheist and theist begin their journey to belief from the same position. (while some may get to that point fully informed, and others blissfully ignorant) From the position of human observation (which includes the sciences) neither is in a superior position.
That contention doesn’t require me to believe either way, and it’s easier to argue from the atheist position.
That’s fine, he can do whatever he wants to… if he exists.
Well, as an atheist I’ll do my best. I have some small trepidation, however, because leaping to these [extremely valid] questions skips quickly over this simple reality:
Both the atheist and theist start from the same point, both intellectually and scientifically. Both have the same evidence before them.
Of course, paths diverge from this point. I suppose the theist begins with the intellectual position that it possible that there are “truths” that are outside human observations. Vis a vis the atheist who takes the intellectual position that god cannot exist because “I can’t see him”, I would say that the theist is in the superior position. (as opposed to the defendable position, “I don’t believe God exists because I can’t see him”)
Of course the theist has the same problem. At some point—and earlier rather than later—the theist must appeal to “faith.” This will often open him up to ridicule and open the gates for Spaghetti Monsters riding Pink Unicorns.
But I think it is s function of hubris, arrogance and abject ignorance that my atheist brethren throw those comments around. It makes me cringe, frankly.
Best as I can tell, both brilliance and ignorance are equally disributed. Further there are many atheists and theists alike who come to their beliefs fully informed, and thoughtfully. Throughout the centuries, and to this very day, there are many people who have come to the conclusion that a creator exists, and who have weighed the evidence. Many are highly educated and have science and their own logic as their basis in their belief. Now that may inspire threads about that evidence. Cool! We can discuss them.
But to suggest that the evidence of a creator is no more compelling than the existence of Pink Unicorns is either disengenuous or ignorant immaturity.
OK whew- for a moment, my Doper world just flipped!
Any chance we can get you debating for Trinitarianism? 
Than our position is flawed, because I agree with you.
As an atheist I take comfort in logic. I am glad to state that my deductive reasoning, inferences and judgement is the basis of my atheism. It is a defendable position. (while ignoring the fact it is, at the core, a gussied up belief system)
It is certainly preferrable to those who appeal to science, right?
I only have to concede the subjective nature of my logic—vis a vis the objective nature of science or mathematics—and the simple fact that some of those theists have some pretty compelling logic of their own.
Not incapable exactly, incapable within the context of the world and evidence as we know it. If he showed himself to me and did some fancy God tricks, then I’m sure I’d believe in him.
You’re welcome!
Let’s revisit post #100:
True!
Blind faith will work just fine. For some reason, however, some theists require that their faith can see. That manifests itself in a fair amount of them being highly informed.
Why, I don’t know. Faith is faith, isn’t it? Why go through the extra work?
Not true!
A disbelief in God may be every bit as capricious and “blind” as a belief in him. If an atheist is being forced into a higher standard of proof than the theist than it should be rejected outright.
The problem, as I see it, is that the theist has humility on his side. (which all too often is mock humility) He can to appeal to faith, and the notion that some “higher power” is behind that curtain. He’s off the hook.
All too often however the atheist has an [intellectually] unheathly desire to “prove”, to show objectively what is essentially a subjective belief. That’s not neccessary. More often than not it’s the atheist who sets himself up for challenges for proof.
Look, **ForumBot’**s bowels are all knotted up because he appealed to science to make a claim that science can only shrug it’s shoulders over. Who_me? prances in and shuts me up with "…“it’s common sense.”
An atheist may come to his subjective disbelief from a position of blindness or enlightenment. It matters not. Just don’t put lipstick on that pig and call it cinderella.
It is a subjective belief that, while [it may be] based on knowledge, reasoning and logic, has no basis in science.
No proof needed.
That would put me in a position of untenable weakness.
the raindog, you’ve obviously spent a good deal of time considering the issue at hand, and yet, the aspersions you cast at the IPU/FSM crowd leave me wondering if you honestly understand the point of the intellectual exercise. You may contend that they’re posting from a dorm room or their parent’s basement. And you’re welcome to believe they’re arrogant, immature, ignorant, or disingenuous. But this…
Your use of the word ‘disingenuous’ implies a feeling on your part that the FSM is nothing more than a mean spirited stab at the faithful and that anyone who mentions a made-up deity in the same breath as a “real” one does so for the sake of saying, “Neener neener!! You’re stupid and illogical!!!”
While this is almost certainly true an obnoxiously large percentage of the time the FSM is invoked on the internet, the underlying point remains: There is no reason to believe that any particular god exists more so than any other deity (or humorous pasta-themed construct) capable of demonstrating equivalent levels of existence. The FSM isn’t a direct attack on a specific god. Rather, it’s an attack on belief.
Throwing the FSM in someone’s face might well be characterized as “immature” if it’s only thrown for the sake of trolling; but I don’t think it’s use, when applied thoughtfully, is particularly disingenuous.
As an afterthought… I particularly dislike the notion that I’ve somehow chosen to disbelieve the God du jour simply because I’m surrounded by those who’ve chosen belief for themselves. It’s a tired old saw, I know, but I haven’t chosen to disbelieve the existence Abrahamic God any more than I’ve chosen to disbelieve Vishnu, Odin, Huitzilopochtli, or even (you knew it was coming) the FSM. Sure the debate has been done to death, but my lack of belief in something I’m unable to experience does not constitute a positive assertion on my part and is not, in fact, a belief at all.
I appreciate the thoughts, and thoroughly enjoy intelligent posts.
Let me think this over, and in the meantime relieve me of some ignorance.
What are the acronyms “IPU/FSM”?
The definition of agnosticism (at least the one I learned back in the day before everyone started making up their own definitions) is that the existence of god is unknowable. I don’t think it is. I am an atheist who has no reason to believe there IS a god. I think its possible there is, but the probablilty is so low, and the impact of his possible existence so nonexistent, that I see no reason to worship him if he actually did exist.
No one knows. Lots of people hope their silly man-made attributes are true, but it’s all made up, based on their indoctrination. I’ll wait for the final report.
Sorry, fellow, I missed a few gems that I should have addressed.
A belief system can be measured by its general accuracy. A system of information allocation which requires skepticism and evidence is one that is objectively less prone to error than one which accepts something without evidence.
No, you can’t just choose willy nilly, but you can choose to turn on that ol’ noggin and consider more deeply the issue of belief without evidence, which could lead to a change in belief.
Raindog, you say my belief in probability is unscientific, but it isn’t, not perse. The same principles that lead me to conclude that one system of information acquisition is superior to another, such as logical coherence and result-based valuation are perfectly valid methods of scientific inquiry.
Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster
Thanks.
Why can’t god be a metaphor for “don’t be a jerk”? You seem to be cherry-picking the “nature” of the creator to suit your own preferred notion of the “nature” of man, and inventing punishments that have no basis in reality.
The experience of his unescapable presence? He’s not present in my life and I find my world quite pleasant. Where do you get this stuff?
Now we have two experts on what god does and who god is…which expert should I blindly follow?
Choosing to downgrade a god who pretty clearly is a jerk into a metaphor is another form of cherry-picking.
Well, sure it is. I just don’t understand why they’ll metaphorize other parts of the bible but swear that the god part isn’t a metaphor in itself. Why does that part continue to be unfailingly real, when the rest of it (for many christians) is fair game for creative interpretation? Very inconsistent.
My feeling is that hyperbole is best used sparingly. Often, I have the impression that it is an indication of intellectual anemia.
By way of example, I often see in abortion threads PLers characterized as “oppressors” or “mysogynists.” Similarly, PCers are “abortionists” or “baby killers.” The fact is, there are many thoughful and informed people on both sides of that issue, and making a caricature of them or their issue is a poor surrogate for dealing directly with the evidence.
But the truth is I am less interested in whether [the existence of] Jehovah is more compelling than that of the FSM.
In thst instance I am pleased to play to a stalemate (by means of science) and count it a victory if my opponent , A) believes that any outcome other than a stalemate is possible, and B) would rather have a root canal than accept a draw. The fact is, if science is the only arbiter over atemporal potentialities, silence----a draw— can be the only rational result!
While I disagree that the evidence for Jehovah is no more compelling than that of the FSM, that is not my interest or my point. Keep in mind, I am an atheist.
I’m simply bringing law and order to the ranks of my fellow atheists. It is the irony that interests me.
We attacking belief…with our beliefs!
The fact is, neither the theist and the atheist is in a superior position. Both them have at the core,* a set of subjective beliefs*, as the basis of their positions.
Who am I say the theist is wrong? I can only say that I cannot establish the existence of God via my observations. I choose not to believe.
I can see a thoughful use of the term. Perhaps they’re not being disengenuous. It doesn’t change my view that it’s intellectually stillborn.
Bingo.
It’s particulalry distasteful to an atheist that the process that brings them to disbelief is essentially the same one that brings theists to belief; and that disbelief shares more in common with faith (or rather, a repudiation of faith) than with science. It makes me cringe that my feelings may lack an objective quality; because subjective feelings often lead to capricious outcomes like a belief in the FSM.
I think that fear often has my fellow atheists looking for love in all the wrong places. It’s perfectly OK to say my own [subjective] logic and reasoning and plain common sense are the basis of my atheism.
This would be true if you were in fact an agnostic.
But if you have an affirmative belief that God doesn’t exist, (which is a subjective belief) than the counter argument is that God does exist; a belief you [affirmatively] reject.
There is a very big difference between the God of the Bible as described by Christians and God as described by Jesus.
As for spiritual experiences, one doesn’t know if or when it will happen, it just does. Nothing anyone can plan.
I believe whatever “refining” that takes place does so here on earth. There is no angry, or punishment given by God to anyone. He wants to be known as He is – unconditional love.