Atheists...

[Pangloss]

Yes, this is all fine. But what I am wondering is how you have arrived at being an atheist then, which means that you specifically believe a god does not exist. You had to arrive at some type of proof in your mind to come to this conclusion. Being an agnostic seems to be logically consistent, in that you do not claim to know one way or the other, because if you do, there is probably some faulty reasoning involved.

I can equally see reasons where, regardless of myth reading or instruction, a person might conclude that a higher power exists in this world, as I can see that someone might not. Somewhere though, in calling yourself an atheist, you decided that it is significantly more likely that a god does not exist, rather than just deciding you can't be sure. I'm wondering how you arrived at this decision.

This type of reasoning works in the sciences, where you look at what is likely and unlikely based on experimental results. But I see a problem when you apply it to a concept such as god/higher power, because the definition of such a concept includes that it could simply be beyond human understanding, or at least out of our grasp enough to where you can't definitively say one thing or another on the topic.

[AtheistDeity]

So, because no one can prove that the Easter Bunny, does, or does not exist it would be 'logical' to base my beliefs on it? A religious "theory" is no more significant. Neither have any actual proof, both are products of human imagination, both offer something that, as human beings, people tend to pursue, with the strongest argument of their validity in it's lack of proof. Religion, in my view, considering the often inconsistent argument of its conception, lack of evidence, and probability, let alone proof is not worth basing 'beliefs' on. Were it not for its popularity, emotional appeal, and philosophical “relevance” of the blanket assumption of the only true philosophy of all existence no one would give the matter any more say, or value than that of the tooth fairy. As an Atheist I believe what I do based only on theories that have been proven not ideas made likely for the sake of not being possible to be disproven.

[Pangloss]

Belief in a religion and belief in a higher power or god are not the same. Yes, people adopt religious views because they are instructed to do so by others, but the concept of god or higher power does not need religion; it inspires the creation of religions or belief structures. I think that if all religious ideas were somehow to vanish, many people would still conclude that there is a god/higher power.

I do understand what your view, but I just think that the concept can not be reasonably considered to a point where you can even say one is more likely than the other. This concept I refer to is a broad concept of god or higher power. If you mean "God" in the judeo-christian sense, or white Zeus with flowing beard sitting in the heaven chucking thunderbolts at unsuspecting humans, then it is logical not to believe in such nonsense, and comparable to the easter bunny. If you however consider this concept equally, as defined throughout every religion or belief structure, it does not seem to me that the general proposition of this higher power is likely to be either false or true, based on our reasoning.

[AtheistDeity]

Actually I never said either was more likely than the other. No one will ever 'know' whether or not there is an Easter Bunny, as they will never 'know' whether or not there is a “god”, nor the true validity of any given religion. Neither concept is more credible than the other. Religious morals, principles, or beliefs, like any other 'moral', or principle are no more provable, nor factual, and credible than the ‘teachings’, of the tooth fairy, if there were such a thing, either. As an Atheist I would never base my beliefs of what is truth, and fact on insubstantial, blanket philosophies that, from no mere coincidence in my opinion, can neither be substantially, and undeniably proven, nor disproved by any range of known, credible inquiry.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by AtheistDeity

Actually I never said either was more likely than the other...

If this is what you think, then you should change your name to AgnosticDeity.

[AtheistDeity]

I suppose I'll have to repeat myself.

So, because no one can prove that the Easter Bunny, does, or does not exist it would be 'logical' to base my beliefs on it? A religious "theory" is no more significant. Neither have any actual proof, both are products of human imagination, both offer something that, as human beings, people tend to pursue, with the strongest argument of their validity in it's lack of proof. Religion, in my view, considering the often inconsistent argument of its conception, lack of evidence, and probability, let alone proof is not worth basing 'beliefs' on. Were it not for its popularity, emotional appeal, and philosophical “relevance” of the blanket assumption of the only true philosophy of all existence no one would give the matter any more say, or value than that of the tooth fairy. As an Atheist I believe what I do based only on theories that have been proven not ideas made likely for the sake of not being possible to be disproven.

Are you going even going to bother challenging my theories or are you going to continue conveniently disregarding my posts?

[Pangloss]

I don't know what "theories" you are referring to. You just keep pointing out the obvious: the burden of proving god lies with the theists/deists. What I am trying to get down to is the definition of "Atheist". An "Atheist" is defined as a person who believes that god does not exist. You said yourself in response to an earlier question that neither the belief of god or belief in no god is any more likely than the other (or at least you implied it by clearly staying you never said it). In order to reach the point where you are an atheist (a belief that there is no god), you first have to determine that the existence of no god is more likely than the existence of a god, when considering the options. If you can not determine this, or if you believe that this can not be determined, then that is being agnostic.

[AtheistDeity]

It is more likely for something that has likely been specifically structured to be unable to be either proven, disproven, or in any other way interacted with by means of any known credible approach of inquiry, something based on a theory that has been modified, and changed numerous times throughout history, something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago when science, technology, and theology, and problem solving was highly unevolved, something created by someone who’s credibility, and honesty cannot be observed in present time, and something with the theory and conception itself containing uncountable inconsistencies, to be untrue, statistically, and logically if not provably. It is no more worth a religious theory, something that can be neither proven, disproven, tested, nor challenged credibly in any known way to determine my beliefs, and philosophy than that of the tooth fairy.

[MITech]

Just something to think about for you theists. Not saying that it is bad to be a theist.

[Holiday20310401]

This is just simply not a depiction of theism, MIT. With most theists and all the ones on the forum here, common sense advocates their theistic beliefs as equally as atheistic beliefs.

Lets not have this as something to "think" about because common sense is not faith.