Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[F1fan]

I am glad to learn one's friendly admission that perhaps since one has some relationship with Buddha so at least one is satisfied, please. Right?
I still like that the OP expresses his friendly satisfaction with his ism though, if he opts for it on his own free will. Right?

Atheists tend to reveal a high degree of free will, and an informed decision when assessing whether the claims of religious people are true or not. It's theists who know WHAT they believe but not WHY they believe that can be questioned as to whether they adopted their religious dogma freely or via some social conditioning that is subconscious.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheists tend to reveal a high degree of free will, and an informed decision when assessing whether the claims of religious people are true or not. It's theists who know WHAT they believe but not WHY they believe that can be questioned as to whether they adopted their religious dogma freely or via some social conditioning that is subconscious.

Now don't tell me that one belongs to Atheism, at the most the Buddhists are Agnosticism people, as I understand, please. I could be wrong, however. Right?

Regards

 

[F1fan]

Now don't tell me that one belongs to Atheism, at the most the Buddhists are Agnosticism people, as I understand, please. I could be wrong, however. Right?

Regards

I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Summary: Why do you believe in God? What do you find to be the most compelling evidence that God exists?

Long Version:
I have found that I am getting frustrated at the thought of people who do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts. You may have noticed this frustration seeping into the conversations I have on RF. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just angry at you for not seeing what I see, which is not really fair. I'll will try to have more patience and explain things more clearly in the future.

One way to influence others is to first be influenced by them. In other words, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Maybe I would be less frustrated if I actually knew the reasons why you believe in God. Help me understand, and in turn I will respectfully respond, and if you care to hear I will respond with the reasons why I don't believe in God.

Thank you in advance for the conversation

Would you like help from those who practice religion wrt your atheistic anger problem, is that a fair understanding of your position Daniel?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This makes not sense at

What part is confusing you?

Is not playing football a sport?
No? Then why is not believing a belief?

Not believing the claim "god exists", for you, is the equivalent of saying "I don't believe that God exists".

Not for me. For everyone who speaks english. It's what the words mean.
Note the "don't" in front of your bolded word. The "n't" means "not".
Not believing = not a belief.

For crying out loud.

If you disbelieve a bridge will hold you, you won't cross a bridge and you will take the long way around.

Note what I said:

Be sure not to use the word "not".
So saying "not praying", is not an action. That's rather doing nothing.

Now, you have given me an example of NOT crossing a bridge.

If you disbelieve the doctor when he says, "You need to go to the hospital NOW", you will go home instead.

Now, you have given me an example of NOT going to the hospital.

You disbelief has a corresponding action.

You mean, a corresponding NON-action.

If you disbelieve that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, you will find a different way.

Or otherwise put: I will not be going the christian way.

So far, it seems that beliefs inform actions and disbeliefs informs non-actions.

Exactly as I said.

That is you position

No, that's the conclusion brought forward by the evidence of reality.

and yet you really can't prove that it was just understanding reality and reason.

Except that I can.
You require an understanding of reality and reason to come to moral conclusions.

Consider a room with a button. There's a label next to it saying "lightswitch". You press it and sure enough, the light goes on/off. Nothing immoral about pushing that button.

Now suppose the same button is hotwired to an electric chair in the next room. As it turns out, every time you push it, some guy gets an extremely painful shock. Once you know about this, pushing that button becomes immoral.

For you to understand that pushing that button is immoral, 2 things thus had to happen:
- your understanding of reality increased (you now know and understand how it's hotwired to a chair in the next room)
- you had to reason about it (pushing the button = electric current = shock = pain / suffering for someone)

This is a ridiculously simplistic example, but it illustrates the point.

To be able to label a certain action or behavior as "immoral", one has to understand reality well enough and have the cognitive tools to reason about the implications to understand and know about the effects of said action or behavior. Then you can make a moral evaluation of those effects.

God may have hardwired that into the psyche of man.

Or maybe it was aliens. Or pixies. Or any other undemonstrable, undefendable, unfalsifiable agent.
Or... maybe we should just follow the evidence which leads to a sufficient explanation. There is absolutely no need to introduce unnecessary entities that can't even be shown to be real.

Yet, if you don't post the speed limit, what is then defined as immoral? 70? 80? 90? or to the race car driver who can handle a car, 140?

Legal laws and morals are not the same thing.
In law, one needs well defined rules to avoid contextual ones - which morality is about.

For example, in my village there is a road where you can drive 70 km/h.
There's a school there. In the section where the school is, there is this zone where you can go only 50. This because obviously when school starts / ends, there are a lot of kids crossing the streets. This is done for safety.

It would be immoral to drive fast there around those times.
How about on a sunday night at like 2 in the morning? There's nobody there. There is absolutely no reason to slow down from 70 to 50. The road itself isn't dangerous at all. There's nobody around.

There's nothing immoral about that. But the law requires clearly defined rules, for clarity.

Morality isn't legislated. There are no laws against being a prick.
Off course there is an overlap. But the purpose of laws is to maintain order and safety. Not to force people to be nice.

Contracts are all about what will be determined as moral or immoral.

No, they aren't.

I just signed a contract with a realtor to sell my house. We signed that contract only to "set in stone" the details of our agreement should there be problems later on. There's nothing "moral" or "immoral" about the dude only getting a 3% commission instead of his usual 3.2% that I negotiated with my leet negotiating skillz... ;-)

Ummmm... maybe or maybe not. Reason varies from person to person. Can you imagine a court system which didn't had something sent down to us for rules and regulations?

Again, law and morality are not the same thing.

Morality, in SOME instances, may not be black and white. Murder is black and white.

Only because the label "murder" literally means unlawful killing.
A "murder" is by definition a killing that wasn't warranted / lawful / moral.

Murder is a type of killing that is by definition wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ancient people observed disease micro organisms.

Note the "causing disease" part that you seemingly ignored.

Miasma theory - Wikipedia

Just because you don't see something or believe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Indeed. In fact, pretty much nothing except falsifiable testability will potentially demonstrate if something doesn't exist.

And how does one do that? With objective evidence.

and conversely no amount of believing in something or overwhelming support by Peers can cause anything to come into existence.

Indeed.
But overwhelming support by objective evidence, will potentially demonstrate if (not "cause") something specific exists.

You have belief in the omnipotence of science

Another strawman.

and you believe you can color in between experiment.

Don't even know what that means.

"Evidence" is irrelevant and misleading. Science is experiment.

Most people go a lifetime without ever contributing anything substantial to human knowledge. The thinking of even the greatest scientists often results in dead ends.

Sure.
Science is an exercise of zero-ing in on truth.
Every failure goes hand in hand with a success.
To learn that some explanation is wrong, is progress.
The new explanation is more robust, more accurate.

Newton's gravitational theory did a pretty good job. And his laws of motion are still very useful.
Nevertheless, he was wrong. Einstein corrected him. The new explanation is more robust.
And we already know it's wrong also (or at least incomplete).

It nevertheless allowed us to build nuclear technology, GPS systems, micro-chips, etc.

 

[PureX]

There is a reality we are presented with and can demonstrate to one another. Full stop. You wanting to call that reality "illusion" is fine... as long as you (and @Trailblazer) understand that it is COMPLETLEY UNLIKE the reality any theist wants to present to ANYONE. The illusion we are all under does NOT include the items that each of us would simply like it to contain. The specific and special illusions of theists are NOT SHAREABLE, NOT DEMONSTRABLE, NOT PRESENT in the same way that other reality you would like to call "illusion" is. It isn't. DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF.

There are aspects of existence that we humans all experience, and there are aspects of it that we do not all experience. How we cognate these experiences into a "reality" is the illusion I was referring to. And we are all living in one. But not the same one.

I understand that we are curious about how other people cognate their experience of existence. We can learn from them. We can learn to broaden our own "reality" by incorporating aspects of theirs. And I also expect there to be some debate as a means of determining, for ourselves, what aspects of their reality we will choose to incorporate into our own.

But that's not what's happening, here, most of the time. What's happening here is people trying to dismiss other people's cognitive reality using the methods suited to creating and maintaining their own. Because they don't seem to understand that their own cognitive reality is just as illusory as anyone else's. NONE OF US HAS A CLUE ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON. None of us has any idea why existence exists. Or why it exists as it does as opposed to existing some other way that we might choose to imagine. None of us has any idea why we're here, or what, if anything, we are supposed to be doing while we're here. None of us. And there is no fact, evidence, logic or reasoning that is going to tell us this. We are all idiots stumbling around in the dark. And the best thing we can do for ourselves, first, is to acknowledge this. To be honest about it. Because it will then open our minds up to the many possibilities we have to choose from in terms of reasoning out, for ourselves, how we are going to negotiate this existence on the blind. There is no "right way" that any of us is ever going to be able to determine, There is only whatever way we deem to be the right way for us.

So all the arrogance about facts and evidence and logic and reason and demanding our fellow humans "explain themselves" to our satisfaction is just groundless and annoying. And it's counter-productive.

 

[PureX]

How am I asserting there things existing that we humans can't verify exist?

Explain exactly what I do not understand.

See post #467.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There are aspects of existence that we humans all experience, and there are aspects of it that we do not all experience. How we cognate these experiences into a "reality" is the illusion I was referring to. And we are all living in one. But not the same one.

Beieve me... I know what you were getting at. But this is STILL nothing like those "special" cases of "reality" (so called) that theists would like to present without being challenged. Nothing like it. And again - this is because we can share the experience, and corroborate one another's findings to a very high degree of fidelity. Not so with claims of the supernatural, or descriptions of God(s) or experience with God(s). Not so.

I understand that we are curious about how other people cognate their experience of existence. We can learn from them. We can learn to broaden our own "reality" by incorporating aspects of theirs. And I also expect there to be some debate as a means of determining, for ourselves, what aspects of their reality we will choose to incorporate into our own.

There is, most certainly, value in gleaning ideas off of other people's imaginations. However, there is a line that can be crossed, whereby one is simply going too far with the things they have imagined. That line ends at the boundaries of your skull. In my opinion, one should never be found attempting to install their imaginative meanderings into the mind of another with intent to convince that person that these items are " as real as the nose on your face." That is disingenuous, controlling and arrogant.

But that's not what's happening, here, most of the time. What's happening here is people trying to dismiss other people's cognitive reality using the methods suited to creating and maintaining their own.

No... what's happening here (and everywhere that religious ideas are challenged) is that people are rejecting that these items are "true" just because someone wants them to be. Until a DEMONSTRATION CAN BE MADE, there is no reason to believe any of this crap. None. Can't see it, can't taste it, can't feel it, can't measure it, can't infer it, can't effectively share it in any way that confirms it as reality... all the hallmarks of a fairy tale.

Because they don't seem to understand that their own cognitive reality is just as illusory as anyone else's.

Sure... fine... I can accept that everyone else's reality is just as "illusory" as my own. Fine. But I can still hand you a stone, and you can run your hands over it and give a description of it that will very closely match my own. FACT. Happens all the damn time with all manner of objects, and even ideas. God isn't like this. I don't know how many times I need to say it. God is FAR MORE ILLUSORY - to the point that your description won't necessarily match the next guy's to any statistically significant degree. It won't unless you two have compared notes beforehand, are from the same religion that tell the same stories, etc. And even if you do match "the next guy's" description - you can't hand God to me, and ask me to tell you what I sense and expect that anything close to what you and that other guy are blathering on about will come out of my mouth. You can't... and you know this. It would be like telling the jury in a courtroom that they must take into account ALL information being told to them as being accurate, even when the information conflicts, and that they must come to rest on YOUR idea. With "YOUR" really only being applicable to whoever it is trying to get someone else to believe their claims about God. Find the stone called "God" and then we can talk on sensible terms. Until then you are spouting nonsense.

NONE OF US HAS A CLUE ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.

Which is supposed to mean what? That we should go about the business of MAKING THINGS UP in order to pretend we have a clue? Sounds a bit childish to me. I've known people who go around speaking on things they obviously have very little knowledge about... those people sound ridiculous. They are the people to laugh about with your friends, while shaking your heads in dismay at the understanding that they are likely already beyond hope. And the laughing only to not have to fully face the idea that your faith in humanity is draining down the toilet in a violent, all-consuming whirlpool.

None of us has any idea why existence exists. Or why it exists as it does as opposed to existing some other way that we might choose to imagine.

So what? Again - why does this mean that making things up is prudent? Aren't you then admitting that we are in EXACTLY the situation where the best course is to feel out and try to understand WHAT IS ACTUALLY HERE to the best of our ability? Why defend the people who are just choosing make believe instead of doing the work of finding out those items that truly apply to ALL of us, thereby better being able to help ALL of us? All of these people with all of these differing God ideas can't all be right! You know this! And so, a great many of them are FACTUALLY JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. That is FACT. And how do we tell the difference between those who are, and those who aren't? WE CAN'T!!! And so the jury MUST remain out on that notion. No verdict can be reached at this time. SO STOP REACHING VERDICTS YOU ABSOLUTE FOOLS.

None of us has any idea why we're here, or what, if anything, we are supposed to be doing while we're here. None of us. And there is no fact, evidence, logic or reasoning that is going to tell us this. We are all idiots stumbling around in the dark.

So then it becomes fine to lie to someone about how you found a flashlight, does it?

GULLIBLE: "But I don't see the light!"
LIAR: "Trust me, it's there. It's like how you love your mom... you can't SEE the love, but it is still there, right?"
GULLIBLE: "Well... I suppose s... OW!!! I tripped on a rock. I think I broke my nose! Where is the light?!"
LIAR: "If you but believe in it, all will be illuminated!"
​

The above exchange is EXACTLY what goes on, daily with religious ideas. Exactly. It is just as sad as the terrible, terrible state of affairs being outlined in the above exchange - it is just given more and better window dressing is all.

And the best thing we can do for ourselves, first, is to acknowledge this. To be honest about it.

And once we're honest about that bit, then the lying can begin, and it's all fine right?

Because it will then open our minds up to the many possibilities we have to choose from in terms of reasoning out, for ourselves, how we are going to negotiate this existence on the blind.

At least you acknowledge the "many possibilities" bit - but I assert that there is no reason to come to rest on one until there is reason.

There is no "right way" that any of us is ever going to be able to determine, There is only whatever way we deem to be the right way for us.

Yes... you can discern what is right for YOU! And then keep it to your damn self.

So all the arrogance about facts and evidence and logic and reason and demanding our fellow humans "explain themselves" to our satisfaction is just groundless and annoying. And it's counter-productive.

I don't care what you think of the process of trying to weed out bad ideas from good ones. I don't. Not at all. You can try and shame me all you want with words like "arrogant," "annoying" and "counter-productive." I'm not going to believe your schtick until you can demonstrate the truth of it. There it is. You can't do that? Then it is best not to mention it in the public sphere in the first place - because I will be lurking there, ready to ask you the questions that make your entire façade fall apart like so much wet papier mâché.

 

[Kenny]

Well your assertion isn't accurate. It's absurd to "believe in God not existing", as it is awkward language and not how atheists respond to religious claims. Let's look at the language and what you say with such assertions.

OK. Because, again, the statements as you present it seems awkward.

To believe a concept is true the concept has to be stated. Children hear about Santa as children and told it brings them gifts. So the concept is "Santa is a jolly old man who will deliver you and other children on December 25 every year". Children accept this concept and believe it is true. At some point in childhood the gig is up and parents admit that Santa doesn't actually exist, so how do children relate to this? They stop believing. What they don't do is 'believe in Santa doesn't exist". In this case the concept is "Santa doesn't exist" and children decide this is true and believe it. But this isn't the concept they work with, the concept they work with is "Santa exists". It's the same with God. We all learn the concept "God exists". It's everywhere. Except for alternative arguments that assert God doesn't exist, the concept "God doesn't;t exist" isn't used in general language, nor how most atheists think about this concept.

So, as you presented it, one believed that Santa exists. It is a belief until the gig is up and then, "in this case the concept is "Santa doesn't exist" and children decide this is true and believe it." - a new belief system which is what i have been saying.

I don't have a problem with people have the belief system that there is no God. We all know that jolly old Santa is non-existent except in the form of parents. We have empirical and verifiable evidence, ie. my parents told that they were Santa and wife.

You may have your position that there is no God (Not sure there is a God is agnostic) although we have no empirical and verifiable evidence of such. (Of course you could say the same of believers in a God).

The problem I have is that atheists play with words because they just don't want to say what they believe "is true and believe it" as a belief system.

We atheists are exposed to the claim "God exists" and we just don't believe it. We don't "believe in God doesn't exist" which would an active judgment about the concept "God doesn't exist". So when theists assert that atheists "believe God doesn't exist" (or some form of this belief in a negative) it doesn't reflect language nor an actual judgment atheists are making.

So, without playing with words like "We don't "believe in God doesn't exist"" - either you are an agnostic (but don't want to admit it) or you are an atheist that doesn't believe there is a God (but don't want to say it)

At least that is how it comes across.

 

[Kenny]

What part is confusing you?

Is not playing football a sport?
No? Then why is not believing a belief?



Not for me. For everyone who speaks english. It's what the words mean.
Note the "don't" in front of your bolded word. The "n't" means "not".
Not believing = not a belief.

For crying out loud.



Note what I said:

Be sure not to use the word "not".
So saying "not praying", is not an action. That's rather doing nothing.

Now, you have given me an example of NOT crossing a bridge.



Now, you have given me an example of NOT going to the hospital.



You mean, a corresponding NON-action.



Or otherwise put: I will not be going the christian way.

So far, it seems that beliefs inform actions and disbeliefs informs non-actions.

Exactly as I said.



No, that's the conclusion brought forward by the evidence of reality.



Except that I can.
You require an understanding of reality and reason to come to moral conclusions.

Consider a room with a button. There's a label next to it saying "lightswitch". You press it and sure enough, the light goes on/off. Nothing immoral about pushing that button.

Now suppose the same button is hotwired to an electric chair in the next room. As it turns out, every time you push it, some guy gets an extremely painful shock. Once you know about this, pushing that button becomes immoral.

For you to understand that pushing that button is immoral, 2 things thus had to happen:
- your understanding of reality increased (you now know and understand how it's hotwired to a chair in the next room)
- you had to reason about it (pushing the button = electric current = shock = pain / suffering for someone)

This is a ridiculously simplistic example, but it illustrates the point.

To be able to label a certain action or behavior as "immoral", one has to understand reality well enough and have the cognitive tools to reason about the implications to understand and know about the effects of said action or behavior. Then you can make a moral evaluation of those effects.




Or maybe it was aliens. Or pixies. Or any other undemonstrable, undefendable, unfalsifiable agent.
Or... maybe we should just follow the evidence which leads to a sufficient explanation. There is absolutely no need to introduce unnecessary entities that can't even be shown to be real.






Legal laws and morals are not the same thing.
In law, one needs well defined rules to avoid contextual ones - which morality is about.

For example, in my village there is a road where you can drive 70 km/h.
There's a school there. In the section where the school is, there is this zone where you can go only 50. This because obviously when school starts / ends, there are a lot of kids crossing the streets. This is done for safety.

It would be immoral to drive fast there around those times.
How about on a sunday night at like 2 in the morning? There's nobody there. There is absolutely no reason to slow down from 70 to 50. The road itself isn't dangerous at all. There's nobody around.

There's nothing immoral about that. But the law requires clearly defined rules, for clarity.

Morality isn't legislated. There are no laws against being a prick.
Off course there is an overlap. But the purpose of laws is to maintain order and safety. Not to force people to be nice.



No, they aren't.

I just signed a contract with a realtor to sell my house. We signed that contract only to "set in stone" the details of our agreement should there be problems later on. There's nothing "moral" or "immoral" about the dude only getting a 3% commission instead of his usual 3.2% that I negotiated with my leet negotiating skillz... ;-)



Again, law and morality are not the same thing.



Only because the label "murder" literally means unlawful killing.
A "murder" is by definition a killing that wasn't warranted / lawful / moral.

Murder is a type of killing that is by definition wrong.

I find @Subduction Zone much more cogent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find @Subduction Zone much more cogent.

Is that your way of avoiding having to address the points raised?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We all know that jolly old Santa is non-existent except in the form of parents.

Actually, we don't.
What we have is an understanding of reality that makes an entity like Santa extremely unlikely.
What we do not have is empirical evidence that disproves Santa.

We have empirical and verifiable evidence, ie. my parents told that they were Santa and wife.

What that evidence shows is that parents place gifts and then claim Santa did it.
So that evidence exposes that the parents lie when they say that Santa did it.
It doesn't prove that there is no Santa, nor does it prove that Santa doesn't place any gifts ever, anywhere, should he exist.

You are extremely loose with the word "know".
I realize all this is borderline semantics. But it's important to be clear here, because this is really the crux of it all.


In the exact same way as with the Santa example, I do not have any disproof of vague notions of gods.
I do not have any "knowledge" of the non-existence of gods.

At best, what I have is an understanding of reality that makes such gods extremely unlikely.
But all that is actually a tangent....

Because the actual issue here, is that my atheism - my disbelief - is a position on a single claim. That claim being "god exists".

The claim "god does not exist", which is a separate claim, is not part of this equation. It is unaddressed.
It's also quite a useless and meaningless claim. It's a claim that ONLY makes sense if someone else posits a god FIRST.

So however way you wish to look at it, atheism is always a reactionary position; a response.
Someone first always needs to claim that a god exists, before anyone else can deny it.

The problem I have is that atheists play with words

They don't. Instead, certain theists tend to not comprehend the difference between:

1. I do not believe X
and
2. I believe X is false

These are two different statements, dealing with different aspects of X

My atheism is defined by the first and I don't even bother with the second.

because they just don't want to say what they believe "is true and believe it" as a belief system.

To not believe a claim is not a belief.
I wonder how many times it must be repeated.

Is not playing football a sport?

So, without playing with words like "We don't "believe in God doesn't exist"" - either you are an agnostic (but don't want to admit it) or you are an atheist that doesn't believe there is a God (but don't want to say it)

I'm an agnostic atheist.
Agnosticism and atheism are different answers to different questions.

This has been explained to you plenty of times in the past, including by yours truly.

One deals with knowledge and the other with belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. or you are an atheist that doesn't believe there is a God (but don't want to say it).

Why would an atheist hesitate in saying that 1. there is no God, or that 2. he/she does not believe in existence of God, or even that 3. he/she does not even believe in the possibility of existence of a God? I am a strong atheist and I go with # 3. If anyone hesitates, then the person is not really an atheist.

Would you like help from those who practice religion wrt your atheistic anger problem, is that a fair understanding of your position Daniel?

No, I would not. But I am not angry with theists. One does not get angry at peoples' ignorance, one pities that.

 

[Kenny]

Is that your way of avoiding having to address the points raised?

Not really avoiding. I just realize that on both our sides it will be an effort in futility.

 

[Kenny]

Why would an atheist hesitate in saying that 1. there is no God, or that 2. he/she does not believe in existence of God, or even that 3. he/she does not even believe in the possibility of existence of a God? I am a strong atheist and I go with # 3. If anyone hesitates, then the person is not really an atheist.

I think your point is well taken.

More often than not, I find that many atheists go in circles instead of being up front with #'s 1 - 3.

Thanks for your straightforwardness.

 

[F1fan]

There are aspects of existence that we humans all experience, and there are aspects of it that we do not all experience. How we cognate these experiences into a "reality" is the illusion I was referring to. And we are all living in one. But not the same one.

Sure. Most humans are capable of empathy. But 1 in 24 people are sociopaths and have a genetic defect that makes them unable to feel empathy, so they can't experience this.

Is this what you are talking about, how defects can alter how people sense and experience what is real and true about normal life? If not, then be specific about what you meant.

I understand that we are curious about how other people cognate their experience of existence. We can learn from them. We can learn to broaden our own "reality" by incorporating aspects of theirs. And I also expect there to be some debate as a means of determining, for ourselves, what aspects of their reality we will choose to incorporate into our own.

So you can incorporate some of what atheists experience as non-believers and broaden your reality?

But that's not what's happening, here, most of the time. What's happening here is people trying to dismiss other people's cognitive reality using the methods suited to creating and maintaining their own. Because they don't seem to understand that their own cognitive reality is just as illusory as anyone else's.

Are you confessing here? Explain how you aren't guilty of this.

So all the arrogance about facts and evidence and logic and reason and demanding our fellow humans "explain themselves" to our satisfaction is just groundless and annoying. And it's counter-productive.

How are facts and evidence arrogant as a response to people who claim to know a God exists? In a debate how is this counter-productive?

Could it be you are just biased against reasonable skeptics because you don't like the results?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really avoiding. I just realize that on both our sides it will be an effort in futility.

Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would an atheist hesitate in saying that 1. there is no God, or that 2. he/she does not believe in existence of God, or even that 3. he/she does not even believe in the possibility of existence of a God? I am a strong atheist and I go with # 3. If anyone hesitates, then the person is not really an atheist.No, I would not. But I am not angry with theists. One does not get angry at peoples' ignorance, one pities that.

An atheist is a person who answers "no" to the question "do you believe any god exists?"

You are a theist if you answer "yes".
Any response other then "yes", means you are an atheist.

 

[Audie]

Sure. Most humans ar capable of empathy. But 1 in 14 people are sociopaths and have a genetic defect that makes them unable to feel empathy, so they can't experience this.

Is this what you are talking about, how defects can alter how people sense and experience what is real and true about normal life? If not, then be specific about what you meant.


So you can incorporate some of what atheists experience as non-believers and broaden your reality?


Are you confessing here? Explain how you aren't guilty of this.


How are facts and evidence arrogant as a response to people who claim to know a God exists? In a debate how is this counter-productive?

Could it be you are just biased against reasonable skeptics because you don't like the results?

" could it be "