Ambiguity of Atheism

[Copernicus]

Well I'm no atheist but if I was there would be no evidence to give for such a position. How would someone provide evidence for something that doesn't exist whether it be god or me having been to the moon.

Really? Do you believe that Santa Claus exists? If not, why not? Or are you an agnostic when it comes to Santa Claus? That is, do you believe that it is impossible to prove his non-existence and therefore futile to argue the point?

With my personal opinion I can't very well point to a tree and say it is evidence of god. My position is that there must be a source for everything and that remnants of that source is around us today. Not sure any of that can be considered evidence.

I think that the problem occurs when you try to define God as not a "thing". God is supposedly a "thing" with a unique property--that of not having been created. However, it requires one less premise to simply believe that physical reality itself is the "thing" with that unique property, if that is all your argument is about. It doesn't establish God's existence, because your very first premise undermines the conclusion. You end up with a big fat "special pleading" fallacy.

 

[idav]

Really? Do you believe that Santa Claus exists? If not, why not? Or are you an agnostic when it comes to Santa Claus? That is, do you believe that it is impossible to prove his non-existence and therefore futile to argue the point?

You don't mean saint nick I take it? Or perhaps the "spirit" of christmas that people making us in a giving mood? With arguments like that what evidence would there be of non-existence?

I think that the problem occurs when you try to define God as not a "thing". God is supposedly a "thing" with a unique property--that of not having been created. However, it requires one less premise to simply believe that physical reality itself is the "thing" with that unique property, if that is all your argument is about. It doesn't establish God's existence, because your very first premise undermines the conclusion. You end up with a big fat "special pleading" fallacy.

Perhaps it is special pleading but there isn't evidence for or against it so what then?

 

[idav]

Lack of evidence is indeed evidence; it's just not proof. Do you understand the difference?

I do understand the difference but I might actually argue the opposite. I can't buy 'not evidence' as 'evidence'. Though I might consider no evidence as proof enough for me to come to a conclusion. 100% certainty is not necessary.

 

[Acim]

Even while this thread was intended for another purpose. And even while I am OP, I must say that for most part, I am in mode of:

:beach: and opcorn:

But this tangent is something I can't pass up:

I'm asking how can someone provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.

I really, truly feel like one of my last posts on this thread addressed this. I'm not even looking back, because I feel I can pick up and pretty much address this in similar fashion.

The "something that doesn't exist" is assumption. For sure in case of God it is, and yet many here are wishing to dispute that in ongoing way. Yet, what if God is (universal) concept akin to Life? It isn't then, provide evidence of Life, but instead, provide evidence for why that (concept) is proof of God.

From my understanding, theists pretty much have it all covered. All things we've conceived of (trying to think of exceptions, can't imagine any off hand) are from God, inclusive of divinity, connected to deity, and/or correlated with mysticism. If it is concept, we got that covered. If it is physical item, yep, got that covered. So, evidence in a sense is 'all around' and is us. IMO, it's not that theists don't have evidence, but more like the evidence that theists have, is rejected as 'proof of God.' And more like rejected as anything but subjective belief in God. Even if several (read as thousands) conceive of divinity as 'universal cosmos,' that will be construed as, 'only your personal belief' as if person who is that brand of theist is alone in their imagination of what is divine / mystical / supernatural.

Now, to help make this point easier but coming from a whole other angle. I am one who doesn't believe the physical is real. I believe there is a physical world, I think it is unreal / illusion. So, you'll often hear me asking, where is the evidence for the physical? To which, anyone can say, it is all around you (or me). And to which I'll inevitably reply, okay, now where is the objective evidence? The evidence beyond the physical receptors telling me the physical world exists? For this argument strikes me as virtually the same as, the reason we know the bible is word of God is because bible says so. Now, it is at least a little on me to provide evidence that this world is illusion since that is the positive version of my negative belief (physical world is unreal). Yet, I'm not quite clear how to do this from within context that is 'physical world.' I have experienced it as illusion, just like I've experienced night dream as 'I'm dreaming' but trying to convince another of it is as sensible as going up to character in night dream and saying, 'you agree with me that this is a dream, right?' IOW, not bloody likely.

I don't know how atheists provide evidence of non-existence of God other than rejection, which at end of the day will stand for that person. But to be clear, it isn't just one model of God we are talking about and if one is extremely strong atheists they are ruling out a whole lot of concepts / understandings which I personally think if met with deeper conversation on the topic, wouldn't stand up. The rejection wouldn't hold. Or rather doesn't hold. When the notion of God is more or less pre-conceived, then it is plausible to maintain rejection of that, but that is also your personal subjective belief at work in the larger discussion, which may or may not get exposed in light of the debate.

 

[Copernicus]

You don't mean saint nick I take it? Or perhaps the "spirit" of christmas that people making us in a giving mood? With arguments like that what evidence would there be of non-existence?

No, I mean Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, Santa Claus--the magical fat guy in the red suit who lives at the North Pole, employs elves to make toys, and delivers them on Christmas Eve. How do you mount an argument that that guy does not exist? Or any mythical being? For example, the Easter Bunny. I don't know whether you believed in Santa or the Easter Bunny during childhood, but lots of kids do. At some point, most children stop believing. I think that those children can list reasons for their apostasy. What makes God (or gods) so different that you cannot construct a reasonable argument for non-existence?

Perhaps it is special pleading but there isn't evidence for or against it so what then?

You are moving the goal posts. You presented a fallacious argument in favor of existence, and you now admit it was a fallacy. What else have you got? As for evidence against, there are good reasons to reject belief in the existence of gods. I present 5 evidential arguments in this thread. You may well dismiss those reasons as inadequate, but that is not the same as saying that there is literally no evidence. In fact, I think that the evidence is quite compelling.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

You presented a fallacious argument in favor of existence, and you now admit it was a fallacy. What else have you got? As for evidence against, there are good reasons to reject belief in the existence of gods. I present 5 evidential arguments in this thread. You may well dismiss those reasons as inadequate, but that is not the same as saying that there is literally no evidence. In fact, I think that the evidence is quite compelling.

The most self-defeating thing about arguing against theists on an evidentiary basis is that contemporary theism isn't the result of some empirical program of inquiry. Believers in the 21st century understandably feel obliged to appeal to rationality, because most people at least affirm that beliefs should have some rational justification. But the believer is only trying to rationalize a belief that wasn't arrived at rationally to begin with.

But this thread you linked is a perfect example of where the theistic approach to evidence differs from the scientific one. In true inductive inquiry, dealing with disconfirming evidence is what's important. In religious belief, only the supporting evidence is even mentioned. The fact that any problematic data can be handwaved away by claiming that God's ways are mysterious to man perfectly demonstrates that we're not dealing with a real program of inquiry here.

And regardless of how it looks, I'm not trying to insult religious believers. I just want them to be honest about the basis for their beliefs. They don't believe because they were convinced by ontological proofs or persuaded by empirical evidence. They believe for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality and evidence.

-Nato

 

[cottage]

Did you not realize that was a hypothetical? If we are relating your 10 meter river jump to the question of god's existence, then yes, belief in the existence of god vastly outnumbers disbelief.

My response was also hypothetical. If nobody else believes (or few believe) that it is possible to clear a ten-metre river, then it is incumbent upon the advocate to demonstrate the possibility. It’s not for the rest of us doubters to make the attempt on advocate’s behalf.

You are moving the goal posts. The argument is that "those making a positive claim have the burden of proof." There is no caveat that says "this only applies to non-science based questions." Either positive and negative claims both have a burden or not; you can't pick and choose.

You misunderstand. What I’m saying is that any claim relating to experience must be provable in possible experience, and hence the 10 metre river-jump analogy.
And remember I said that there is an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead? That was the point of my previous post, which you seem to be missing. For example we see the Theory of Evolution attacked instead of the argument for creation being robustly made – on the basis that if evolution can be shown as suspect, then creation must be true; and the specious moral argument, where a lack of an explanation for so-called moral laws supposedly installs God as their cause by default. This is a fallacious, back-to-front form of argumentation that puts the ball in the court of the doubter, in order to deflect examination from the primary proposition one suspects, which is a rather odd position to take if the proposition is sound and so certain.

So your response is to say "I'm not going to give you a rational argument either"? How does that make sense? If the other party fails in supporting their view, that does not mean that your view automatically wins without having to present a shred of reason.

Actually, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Arguments even if fallacious or misguided can always be taken to task. The point I’m making is that it is for the believer to present his reasoned argument and make his case, which is not to be simply passed to the sceptic to disprove, especially as the believer is quite unable to objectively establish his own ‘proof’ [more on which further down the page]. In one sense it may be said that the sceptic’s objections are the most vulnerable since he/she doesn’t pretend to argue beyond the logical/empirical world and so can be wrong, whereas the theists, their claims being an article of faith, can never make such an admission, and it is because of that the burden is placed inexorably upon the theists to demonstrate the certainty that is claimed.

You are exhibiting your bias. Most theists claim experience as evidence for their belief in the existence of God. What makes you disbelieve their claims?

‘Exhibiting my bias’! <laughs> Well of course! So was it not already obvious that I’m a religious sceptic? (See the beginning of my last post and the info below my screen name)
My own position is that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural being of doctrinal belief systems, unless or until compelling argument or evidence demonstrates otherwise. To date there have been none.

If the arguement against theism is so self-evident, than why do you go through such lengths to avoid making that arguement? Wouldn't it be easier, and less jerk-like, to simply respond to a theist's question with your reasons for disbelief, rather than this whole spiel about how you aren't required to have any reasons?
And yes, I firmly stand by this: Regardless of your belief, claim, position, etc, you ought to be able to explain why you hold that particular stance. If you can't, then it's time to re-evaluate.

You have it the wrong way round. It is because the argument for theism is not self-evident, or otherwise evidentially convincing, that individuals are not compelled to argue against a system of belief as faith that they do not share – or have an erroneous label attached to them as a consequence. And more to the point I happen to think it is rather ‘jerk-like’ (if we must now trade insults) to expect individuals to have to defend themselves against others’ otherworldly, spiritual or mystical claims. Much as I, personally, enjoy the role of a religious sceptic (I’ll be pleased to give you my arguments on any theistic claim), the fact remains that theism is propositional and makes assertions that it cannot evidence or support, such as the existence of a supernatural being and life after death, and therefore the broader point is those who do not share those fantastic beliefs do not have to absurdly disprove the existence of the thing that they cannot with good reason believe to exist. It is theism, not atheism that needs to be justified. Were theism a demonstrable truth, atheism self-evidently would have no role.

 

[Willamena]

If nobody else believes (or few believe) that it is possible to clear a ten-metre river, then it is incumbent upon the advocate to demonstrate the possibility. It’s not for the rest of us doubters to make the attempt on advocate’s behalf.

You're using the same principle Falvlun used in another example, and use it as if it somehow argues against itself. It doesn't.

 

[idav]

No, I mean Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, Santa Claus--the magical fat guy in the red suit who lives at the North Pole, employs elves to make toys, and delivers them on Christmas Eve. How do you mount an argument that that guy does not exist? Or any mythical being? For example, the Easter Bunny. I don't know whether you believed in Santa or the Easter Bunny during childhood, but lots of kids do. At some point, most children stop believing. I think that those children can list reasons for their apostasy. What makes God (or gods) so different that you cannot construct a reasonable argument for non-existence?

I can read all kinds of fiction and be introduced to all sorts of characters. I don't think there is a need to discredit imagined beings unless there is sound evidence of it.

At the same time I can not take the plunge to atheism because from my perspective, the answer to what the source is, could very well have god characteristics. The way I see it god is right in front of our eyes but there is little I can say to prove that everything is evidence.

As for atheism there is no reason to prove something is non-existent. One could search every bit of the cosmos and never find a thing. I attempted to get more info in the thread God Didn't Do It where I addressed this very issue. How much knowledge do we need before we can say god didn't do anything? Perhaps you have some additional insight there.

I kinda think of it in terms of trying to prove god didn't do anything by our court standards. By court standards God would easily get dismissed of any charges of anything since there is no evidence to put him somewhere. In fact it wouldn't ever make it to trial because there wouldn't be any evidence to say god did something to accuse him of. So I think the lack of evidence is in favor of atheism and until some viable evidence can be presented then it is ridiculous to try and prove atheism true.

You are moving the goal posts. You presented a fallacious argument in favor of existence, and you now admit it was a fallacy. What else have you got? As for evidence against, there are good reasons to reject belief in the existence of gods. I present 5 evidential arguments in this thread. You may well dismiss those reasons as inadequate, but that is not the same as saying that there is literally no evidence. In fact, I think that the evidence is quite compelling.

It was only fallacious if you have arguments against it that I'm ignoring. I'm not ignoring anything and my perspective can go either way, and the arguments I have can have little evidence that goes more towards a naturalistic atheism or mystical pantheism but I admit that I'm on the line and that there is very little to no evidence that can be found to sway me either way, mostly because my inquiries are philosophical even given what recent knowledge I'm able to gather. My views are naturalistic so your 5 arguments don't necessarily apply in my thinking. Peoples failed attempts to prove god in the past says nothing of we know now or will find in the future. If I'm hiding in gaps, as I mentioned about the other thread, then it still can go either way, and claiming atheism would also be hiding in gaps until knowledge can answer me more of our philosophical type questions.

 

[idav]

The "something that doesn't exist" is assumption.

There is nothing to assume there. Anybody can make anything up and we have no reason to consider it existing outside imagination.

For sure in case of God it is, and yet many here are wishing to dispute that in ongoing way. Yet, what if God is (universal) concept akin to Life? It isn't then, provide evidence of Life, but instead, provide evidence for why that (concept) is proof of God.

I agree. Yes we know what life is and no reason to make that term synonymous with god. Why life should be considered God would be a start.

From my understanding, theists pretty much have it all covered. All things we've conceived of (trying to think of exceptions, can't imagine any off hand) are from God, inclusive of divinity, connected to deity, and/or correlated with mysticism. If it is concept, we got that covered. If it is physical item, yep, got that covered. So, evidence in a sense is 'all around' and is us. IMO, it's not that theists don't have evidence, but more like the evidence that theists have, is rejected as 'proof of God.' And more like rejected as anything but subjective belief in God. Even if several (read as thousands) conceive of divinity as 'universal cosmos,' that will be construed as, 'only your personal belief' as if person who is that brand of theist is alone in their imagination of what is divine / mystical / supernatural.

All this is starting with the premise of god existing so of course everything came from god based on such a premise. What needs to be shown is that it is more than just naturalism, that is to say, supernatural should be proven to exist or god should be shown to exist by natural means.

Now, to help make this point easier but coming from a whole other angle. I am one who doesn't believe the physical is real. I believe there is a physical world, I think it is unreal / illusion. So, you'll often hear me asking, where is the evidence for the physical? To which, anyone can say, it is all around you (or me). And to which I'll inevitably reply, okay, now where is the objective evidence? The evidence beyond the physical receptors telling me the physical world exists?

It doesn't seem very productive to argue existence using existence as a tool.

For this argument strikes me as virtually the same as, the reason we know the bible is word of God is because bible says so. Now, it is at least a little on me to provide evidence that this world is illusion since that is the positive version of my negative belief (physical world is unreal). Yet, I'm not quite clear how to do this from within context that is 'physical world.' I have experienced it as illusion, just like I've experienced night dream as 'I'm dreaming' but trying to convince another of it is as sensible as going up to character in night dream and saying, 'you agree with me that this is a dream, right?' IOW, not bloody likely.

Right because arguing that reality is an illusion is self defeating making nothing worth pondering in the first place.

I don't know how atheists provide evidence of non-existence of God other than rejection, which at end of the day will stand for that person. But to be clear, it isn't just one model of God we are talking about and if one is extremely strong atheists they are ruling out a whole lot of concepts / understandings which I personally think if met with deeper conversation on the topic, wouldn't stand up. The rejection wouldn't hold. Or rather doesn't hold. When the notion of God is more or less pre-conceived, then it is plausible to maintain rejection of that, but that is also your personal subjective belief at work in the larger discussion, which may or may not get exposed in light of the debate.

It shouldn't be necessary to reject every definition of god one can imagine. Since theism is pre-conceived in the first place there isn't much to reject. Science doesn't care whether the premise of creator is true or false because existence will still show us evidence to go by.

 

[Acim]

I'm not trying to insult religious believers. I just want them to be honest about the basis for their beliefs. They don't believe because they were convinced by ontological proofs or persuaded by empirical evidence. They believe for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality and evidence.

Some believers come from Reason, and not only (blind) faith.

The believer in a material world is coming from faith in an axiom that to date has no objectively empirical evidence to support its foundation, and yet there appear to be a great many believers in this delusion.

When do we get to be honest about the basis of this belief?

 

[Acim]

There is nothing to assume there. Anybody can make anything up and we have no reason to consider it existing outside imagination.

You are making this point to a person who doesn't believe anything exists outside of consciousness. So, uh yeah, I'll agree to what you are saying here.

I agree. Yes we know what life is and no reason to make that term synonymous with god. Why life should be considered God would be a start.

There is no 'should' in my understanding of why God equals Life. There are many reasons to equate 'Creator of everything' (that is real) with something that is perceived / believed to be real or lasting. Many reasons or perhaps one underlying reason, along lines of: life gives purpose / meaning to forms of existence through our (collective) consciousness. We participate in this existence and in purpose.

What needs to be shown is that it is more than just naturalism, that is to say, supernatural should be proven to exist or god should be shown to exist by natural means.

And if God is the natural means, how would we show this other than having shift in perception?

Right because arguing that reality is an illusion is self defeating making nothing worth pondering in the first place.

If physical manifestations or projections are taken as reality, it is not self defeating to realize these (or actually this) as illusion. Are you 'self defeated' when awoken from night dream and realize the illusion of that existence? Do we still not ponder messages (endlessly) in our mind made illusions (dreams, stories, theories, models, etc.)?

Science doesn't care whether the premise of creator is true or false because existence will still show us evidence to go by.

This humors me. As if it is existence 'over there' that is showing 'us.' Again, this applies almost with direct correlation to night dreams, for it is existence there that shows 'us' evidence to go by, to perpetuate the dream as if it is reality in which all senses are pointing to, I am here, I can see, touch, smell, hear and taste this reality. Laws and rules exist that are not of my making. The evidence of this place is not coming from me, and I am being show existence from something that is 'outside of me.' I am consciously independent of the other characters here and of the apparent laws at work.

 

[cottage]

You're using the same principle Falvlun used in another example, and use it as if it somehow argues against itself. It doesn't.

You haven't given any argument to explain what you mean, but what I will say in response is that anyone can claim or state anything, be it: 'X can jump a 10 metre-wide river', or even the statement you've written above. In both cases it is not for me to carry out tests in the case of the former example or fathom your meaning in the case of the latter. If X can clear the 10 metres and your statement above can be justified, then the matter is proven.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

The believer in a material world is coming from faith in an axiom that to date has no objectively empirical evidence to support its foundation, and yet there appear to be a great many believers in this delusion.

So the material world can't be empirically detected?

Wow.

-Nato

 

[idav]

You are making this point to a person who doesn't believe anything exists outside of consciousness. So, uh yeah, I'll agree to what you are saying here.

Well thats good we agree somewhere.

There is no 'should' in my understanding of why God equals Life. There are many reasons to equate 'Creator of everything' (that is real) with something that is perceived / believed to be real or lasting. Many reasons or perhaps one underlying reason, along lines of: life gives purpose / meaning to forms of existence through our (collective) consciousness. We participate in this existence and in purpose.

It one thing to tell me that god is everywhere but a total different game trying to tell an atheist reality = god.

And if God is the natural means, how would we show this other than having shift in perception?

This is a very important point. The thing about evidence is that it is or at least should be the same for everyone. It is all on how you perceive this same existence that we share. There are important distinctions to acknowledge. Pantheists and Atheists are both going by premises that shape the perception. The thing is to ask the right questions. Since pantheism borders on atheism it is a good comparison. The difference between me jumping to atheism would be to say that awareness is not something that existed since the beginning or at the very least evolved since the beginning. This important philosophical question would tell me whether consciousness truly is an illusion, and if it is an illusion then I would be atheist. That's why I'm here asking all these silly questions getting different POV's from all of these threads.

If physical manifestations or projections are taken as reality, it is not self defeating to realize these (or actually this) as illusion. Are you 'self defeated' when awoken from night dream and realize the illusion of that existence? Do we still not ponder messages (endlessly) in our mind made illusions (dreams, stories, theories, models, etc.)?

This spill about night dreams isn't helpful. We share this reality and dreams are not shared so dreams can't count for evidence.

This humors me. As if it is existence 'over there' that is showing 'us.' Again, this applies almost with direct correlation to night dreams, for it is existence there that shows 'us' evidence to go by, to perpetuate the dream as if it is reality in which all senses are pointing to, I am here, I can see, touch, smell, hear and taste this reality. Laws and rules exist that are not of my making. The evidence of this place is not coming from me, and I am being show existence from something that is 'outside of me.' I am consciously independent of the other characters here and of the apparent laws at work.

In dreams we are god like you described being independent and outside of what is being perceived. Reality isn't so forgiving. If you find reality an illusion then you should know a way out other than delving into your own imagined perceptions. You can't ponder these things without using or referencing reality which is why saying reality is an illusion is self defeating.

 

[Copernicus]

The most self-defeating thing about arguing against theists on an evidentiary basis is that contemporary theism isn't the result of some empirical program of inquiry. Believers in the 21st century understandably feel obliged to appeal to rationality, because most people at least affirm that beliefs should have some rational justification. But the believer is only trying to rationalize a belief that wasn't arrived at rationally to begin with.

Sweeping generalizations like your very last sentence are not helpful in these debates, because they are so easy to dismiss. It does not matter how one arrived at a belief or what one's motivation for believing it is as much as it matters how one defends the belief. People can defend the truth with bad arguments, too. I don't expect empirical arguments to convince people who have built mental castles to defend their beliefs. I only aim to erode those defenses and examine the integrity of my own.

But this thread you linked is a perfect example of where the theistic approach to evidence differs from the scientific one. In true inductive inquiry, dealing with disconfirming evidence is what's important. In religious belief, only the supporting evidence is even mentioned. The fact that any problematic data can be handwaved away by claiming that God's ways are mysterious to man perfectly demonstrates that we're not dealing with a real program of inquiry here.

What you seem to be arguing is that rational debate cannot defeat defense of the irrational, but I take a longer view. Religious belief (or belief about religion) does not depend on any single argument but a framework of supporting beliefs about reality. My 5 arguments are supporting beliefs that shore up my rejection of theism. Knocking one of them out isn't going to turn me into a theist any more that proving one of them to the satisfaction of a theist will turn that person into an atheist. Arguments just undercut or strengthen the framework that supports a core belief. People convert to a different worldview only after all of their mental defenses are sufficiently undermined, and that usually takes a lot of reflection that goes well beyond winning or losing any particular argument.

And regardless of how it looks, I'm not trying to insult religious believers. I just want them to be honest about the basis for their beliefs. They don't believe because they were convinced by ontological proofs or persuaded by empirical evidence. They believe for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality and evidence.

I honestly do not think that atheists and theists are all that different in how they approach belief. There is a certain amount of irrationality--mental shortcutting--in all of us, because we just don't have time to exhaustively reason through every belief we have. Belief in God--or lack thereof--rests on the bedrock of other beliefs, many of which may have been accepted without overmuch critical examination. The reality is, though, that theists can be just as skeptical as atheists in their everyday judgments about mundane things. If they appear to abandon their natural critical thinking in matters of spiritual belief, then there is nothing wrong with pointing out the inconsistencies in their behavior. In the end, it is not really me that they need to defend those inconsistencies to, but themselves. As for me, I am just as concerned with uncovering and repairing my own inconsistencies as with fixing those in others.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Sweeping generalizations like your very last sentence are not helpful in these debates, because they are so easy to dismiss.

Dude. I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm just trying to point out to fellow nonbelievers that in regards to religious belief, the notion of evidence isn't as important as it is to people engaged in actual empirical inquiry.

I'm only a "believer" in evolution by natural selection because that's the theory that explains most of the available observations. If a better theory were to come along, I'd believe that one. Can you say the same for someone who believes they'll survive their physical death? Or someone who believes God answers prayers? In my opinion, religious believers aren't idiots, they just believe in what they believe for much different reasons than nonbelivers do.

-Nato

 

[Acim]

So the material world can't be empirically detected?

Wow.

Yeah wow.

With what would you use to empirically detect the material world?

 

[Acim]

It one thing to tell me that god is everywhere but a total different game trying to tell an atheist reality = god.

Same game, perceived difference in willingness of participants. One might be like playing game on easy mode, the other playing it on hard mode.

This is a very important point. The thing about evidence is that it is or at least should be the same for everyone. It is all on how you perceive this same existence that we share.

Which is always going to come down to sense of conformity if education is involved. The higher the education or more specialized the knowledge, the greater the desire to seek conformity. Coloring outside of the lines is often encouraged in theory, but when time for business comes, conformity wins out, and must be adhered to, otherwise discussion for the busy bodies (rather quickly) becomes pointless.

There are important distinctions to acknowledge. Pantheists and Atheists are both going by premises that shape the perception. The thing is to ask the right questions. Since pantheism borders on atheism it is a good comparison. The difference between me jumping to atheism would be to say that awareness is not something that existed since the beginning or at the very least evolved since the beginning. This important philosophical question would tell me whether consciousness truly is an illusion, and if it is an illusion then I would be atheist.

Consciousness is always what is being used as tool to make sense from what appears as 'given.'

This spill about night dreams isn't helpful. We share this reality and dreams are not shared so dreams can't count for evidence.

Then you are misunderstanding the allusion I am making. In night dreams, I share a reality with other characters in a place that from within that context is not my making. Emphasize from within that context. From outside of that context, yes, the whole experience, purpose and reality of the dream gets whittled down to 'doesn't matter, we weren't there to share it' or in a word, illusion. So, within context that is physical world, the evidence for the non-physical qualities that we keep coming up with and/or maintaining would seem to have bearing on our pronounced reality, while always being next to impossible to 'prove' or 'find evidence for' if held strictly to the context that is the material world. These items will always be vague / ambiguous if exact definition depends on acceptance from all others. Thus, it is usually enough for us to find a good dozen or so that agree with us generally. Does everyone accept definitions we have for concept of science? I would say, no, not even close. But since enough local colleagues likely do, then that is what matters when it comes time to practice, apply and further research. Likewise, do all humans agree on what God is, and God's purpose is in our lives? Um, pretty sure that doesn't need a reply. But come Sunday morning, there will be enough local members who agree enough and honor the belief system enough that an experience further justifying that way of living, can be found. Easily, and within reason.

In dreams we are god like you described being independent and outside of what is being perceived. Reality isn't so forgiving. If you find reality an illusion then you should know a way out other than delving into your own imagined perceptions. You can't ponder these things without using or referencing reality which is why saying reality is an illusion is self defeating.

I do know a way out. I have experienced it. I believe, very strongly, that is is plausible (reasonable, not faith oriented) to experience 'way out' often, read as hourly. It is not finding 'reality' as illusion and while that way of understanding works from your perspective, it is not how I understand it. It is understanding physical existence around me as illusion, just as I understand that in my 'waking moments' within dream context.

Reality is very forgiving.
Illusion of separation from (divine) reality is entirely unforgiving.

 

[Copernicus]

I can read all kinds of fiction and be introduced to all sorts of characters. I don't think there is a need to discredit imagined beings unless there is sound evidence of it.

Now you are beginning to sound like a dyed-in-the-wool atheist who doesn't see any evidence at all for the existence of that fictional being called "God".

At the same time I can not take the plunge to atheism because from my perspective, the answer to what the source is, could very well have god characteristics. The way I see it god is right in front of our eyes but there is little I can say to prove that everything is evidence.

You do not need to say that. Everything is evidence. And what do you mean "our eyes"? Speak for your own eyes and explain why it is that you think others should see something there. After all, we do agree on the existence of a lot of things we see. Do you have a special gift of sight that the rest of us lack? Whence comes the blind spots of so many others? And I've noticed something about those who lack my "god" blind spot--they can't seem to agree with each other on what it is they see.

As for atheism there is no reason to prove something is non-existent. One could search every bit of the cosmos and never find a thing. I attempted to get more info in the thread God Didn't Do It where I addressed this very issue. How much knowledge do we need before we can say god didn't do anything? Perhaps you have some additional insight there.

Probably not. People who claim that something exists have more of a burden of proof than those who claim lack of existence for the very reason you give. It is much easier to prove a claim of existence than non-existence. That is what makes skepticism such a solid cornerstone of rationality. The knowledge we need to reject belief in God then becomes very specific. First, we must have an understanding of what "God" means. Can we list the properties and characteristics that such a being has? Then we can ask ourselves whether those properties and characteristics are consistent with the reality that we find ourselves in. If God appears to be an unlikely being, given our circumstances, then he/she/it probably does not exist. If we canot decide what "God" means, then there is no point in trying to discuss the matter.

I kinda think of it in terms of trying to prove god didn't do anything by our court standards. By court standards God would easily get dismissed of any charges of anything since there is no evidence to put him somewhere. In fact it wouldn't ever make it to trial because there wouldn't be any evidence to say god did something to accuse him of. So I think the lack of evidence is in favor of atheism and until some viable evidence can be presented then it is ridiculous to try and prove atheism true.

The "court" metaphor is not always appropriate, because the "rules of evidence" can be different outside of a courtroom situation. God is certainly not "existent" until proven "non-existent". Remember that we are not concerned with whether God has actually done anything, but with whether such a being can plausibly exist. It is rational to reject belief in the implausible unless it is the most plausible possibility.

It was only fallacious if you have arguments against it that I'm ignoring. I'm not ignoring anything and my perspective can go either way, and the arguments I have can have little evidence that goes more towards a naturalistic atheism or mystical pantheism but I admit that I'm on the line and that there is very little to no evidence that can be found to sway me either way, mostly because my inquiries are philosophical even given what recent knowledge I'm able to gather. My views are naturalistic so your 5 arguments don't necessarily apply in my thinking...

Sorry, but I don't understand. Those 5 arguments are all naturalistic. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "naturalistic".

...Peoples failed attempts to prove god in the past says nothing of we know now or will find in the future. If I'm hiding in gaps, as I mentioned about the other thread, then it still can go either way, and claiming atheism would also be hiding in gaps until knowledge can answer me more of our philosophical type questions.

All I can say is that the "God of Gaps" argument is not about whether there exists a search space for your belief to reside in but the continually shrinking size of that search space. As for philosophers, there is something to be said for the wags who define them as people who refuse to take common sense for an answer.