I wrote one of those too.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=153718
(I was younger then, so some of it is silly)
Anyone who says there is no god is just as mistaken as those who proclaim there is a god.
It really is quite simple. Show me. Don’t go sideways with historical accounts of miracles, or get side-tracked attempting to prove that those miracles are of natural causes. That becomes part of the is - isn’t crap that never ends.
Show me - either way. No one can, and that is the point. Either direction it comes down to beliefs based on personal experiences which remain personal.
The is - isn’t arguments may be entertaining but are a waste of time.
It’s tough enough to get through the day in our “civilized” world without endless argumentation going absolutely nowhere.
You are right, it is really that simple. The problem is that a heck of a lot of folks think that this “atheism” is the assertion that there is no god. There are those who say that “there is no god”, but that is not what the strict term “atheist” means. I am only comfortable saying that i think there is no god in the exact same sense that i ALSO say that there are no unicorns or flying spaghetti monster. I’m not going to claim that i have proof. That would be a whole other ball game. A ball game in which scoring a point is impossible, and the third base coach is passed out drunk in the dugout.
God must be real huh? Because without him there would be no meaning? Is our meaning even apparent in the “god is real” case at all? I dont know it. Maybe someone could reveal what our meaning or purpose really is.
This argument is similar to the one where people say something like “Well if you have no god then what’s to stop you from killing stealing and raping?” Which is really telling of the person’s character. This question implies that the ONLY reason people do no kill steal or rape is because big brother God is watching. If it were scientifically determined and verified that the god you worshiped did NOT exist, would you go out and kill people or steal or rape or anything like that? No. You wouldn’t. If you would then I’d like to know why you would throw ethics and civility out the window.
First of all your analogy of rotten fruit:empty plate::faith in a god:naturalism is shitty at best. In one you either accept something and kinda get by, or accept nothing (the empty plate) and physically starve. In the other you accept something that has no proof and get by with no caring whether or not it is actually true, or you accept that the world is the way it is by natural causes and get by without accepting stories of its inner workings that have no justification or reason.
Here’s a better example (not perfect but its more relevant):
Lets say you are a parent with two children and your family owns only one TV. Each kid has a favorite TV show that comes on at the same time. Billy wants to watch his and claims that his is better, while Timmy wants to watch his show and claims that his is better. Each kid is arguing at equal odds for their respective favorite show. They cannot come to a compromise and resort to fighting. You the parent come along with your stroke of parenting genius and take the remote and turn the TV off and tell them both that if they can’t come to an agreement that they should go play outside in reality.
Watch TV : play outside :: faith in god : naturalism
Alex,
Good, then argue for naturalism! You are treating it as a default, which it is not. It is a perfectly viable alternative, so treat it as such. Huffing and puffing at the gates of theism is a path to nowhere.
Phaedrus,
I think some of our disagreement has to do with how philosophy is applied. I see philosophy as a tool for personal growth. If I wanted to know how the world worked, I’d engage in empirical research (oh, wait . . .). Questions of ontology, epistemology, and the rest are really only meaningful insofar as they help us along the quest of understanding ourselves and our place in the world. Within that context, I think we need to pick an arbitrary starting point (which one really doesn’t matter, some are better than others but I’ve beaten Oregon Trail with all the characters) and work from that. The theism vs. atheism debate is arguing over which starting point is better, but too often it is used by those not actively engaged in the process of following that starting point along and instead they are just arguing where to put the start line. Adopt a worldview, follow it through, and present an argument for it. Naturalism is awesome. Go for it. Arguing contra-theism gets the naturalist nowhere.
Zeus,
See, that is what I am talking about. Take a starting point and work with it. Sure, we eventually decide that some of the things we were working with were silly, but that is part of the process. I’ve discarded many silly ideas since I joined ILP. That thread was a good one, even if I was a bit of a pill at times 
In general an object or event was either placed there or caused by a consciousness, or the object/event occurs independent of a consciousness (i.e. “naturally”). There is no gray area. Your car isn’t sitting in your driveway by natural causes. Ice doesn’t float because a consciousness wills it so (at least any consciousness that any of us have encountered or can prove existent).
Given any singular event, it can only be caused or it is naturally occurring. There is no third option, there is no gray area. Thus negation of a proposition of an event being “caused by something”, is the same thing as a justification that the event is natural.
If naturalism were the default, you’d see a lot more of them. That is the trick of it. I think there are a lot of crypto-naturalists in the religious community, but attacking their base won’t do you a lick of good, whereas presenting an alternate view they may be sympathetic towards is a viable means to convince them. That is the point of mentioning atheism, yes?
That, of course, doesn’t deal with how one should approach naturalism developmentally.
Perhaps, Xun, the arbitrary starting point for some is “The Truth.” At best your science can only understand how the world works in a Kantian way, in the world of the senses. Philosophically some of us “have to” know if that’s all there is, just that world that we might offhandedly call “the real world.”
I think the problem arises when religion and science try to crowd each other’s turf. If a scientist says there’s no soul, no God, then all he’s really saying is there’s no evidence for the existence of either in the physical world. To extend that claim to metaphysics is inviting a theist to pounce. Likewise, Ucci can say we have an immaterial soul which is judged by an omniscient, immaterial/extradimensional God and we can have a pleasant conversation about it. But if he claims this God is raising the dead on Earth and mucking around with the laws of physics…well, then he better have eaten his Wheaties this morning. 
I couldn’t agree more.
The trick, for me, is that we don’t start out with a blank slate with respect to “The Truth”, we invariably have some baggage from our upbringing. So, no matter what, we aren’t bringing a value-neutral position to the table. So, when people say that such-and-such a position is “default” I have to ask, “For whom?” For Locke’s man in a state of nature that doesn’t exist? Well, that is clearly no good.
That’s the rub. We all look at the same glass but we each decide if it’s half full or half empty.
Okay, forgot one option: pretend the glass isn’t really there.
Turn your TV on to Animal Planet look at all the naturalists you see. Witness a child birth. A naturalist pops out of a vagina every day.
The initial condition for a human brain is “nothing”. You are a clean slate when you are born. If throughout your entire life you are NEVER presented the concept of a metaphysical “cause” you would have no other option than to think that the events you have encountered occurred naturally.
I must add a disclaimer to my use of the word “naturalist”. The only reason I use the word is because people use another word that has the opposite meaning. If non-naturalism did not exist in the world, then the word “naturalism” wouldn’t be used.
Phaedrus
Well, that’s ok. I only need one, after all.
On the subject of sophistry and rhetoric. Of course that’s a big part of it, but the fact is, you can’t talk to most atheists about religion. It would be like talking to a shark about your favorite pair of slippers. So yeah, when an atheist skips right to “Why would Jesus say thus-and-so??”, there’s always going to be an element of sophistry in the answer. But no more than the degree of sophistry that led them to ask in the first place. When an atheist ‘asks’ how it is that God could do this or permit that, generally they aren’t really ‘asking’ anything at all, they are thrusting with a rhetorical saber, and so the ‘answer’ that they get will be a riposte.
You want to talk about clever rhetoric, tell me why there’s almost nothing but atheists posting in the Religion forum. Give me a good answer to that, and we can maybe discuss my sincerity and good-faith towards critics.
Tortoise,
Now that’s rhetoric!
Yeah, perfect example. What, am I now supposed to engage in a deep, meaningful and logically rigorous discussion about whether or not religious people are lazy?
Um, cause philosopher types are smart? 
The only numerical system I recognize is based on e (comma) bitches.
=D>
Yes. There is no proof and discussing this stuff does nothing to provide proof. It is a waste of time.
Then tell me how is it possible that I can “show” you.
How is it possible to “show” anyone that there is nothing there? If nothing is there, then by definition there literally will be nothing there to show. If you apply this same epistemic standard consistently then you’ve made it impossible to ever disbelieve in anything that is nonexistent – and not just in the nonexistences of the various gods who have been proposed to exist throughout history. You must also neither believe nor disbelieve in the existences of ghosts, of the ether, of monsters, of phlogiston, of Martians, etc.
“Show” me that jet airliners are not carried through the air by flying, invisible, incredibly strong elves.
If you cannot, then should we believe that the invisible flying elf theory is just as likely to explain why a jet can fly through the air as does any theory of aerodynamics?
Evidence for a proposition is required to have justified belief in the proposition. A lack or absence of evidence for the proposition is what engenders non-belief.
R C,
You can’t. But that doesn’t keep us from trying, right? 
That is the theist argument at it’s base. As long as it can’t be proven that it doesn’t exist, then it must exist. The problem with that is it opens the doors to any sort of claim you wish to make - including elves flying the plane.
“Show me” means exactly what it says. Supposition doesn’t replace “show me”. I’m a ‘hard’ agnostic. I won’t discount the notion of a creator, but I give it the same consideration as string theory and multiple universes. It is all supposition. When you can show me another universe, then I’ll believe, but not until then.
Skepticism is a useful tool. Perhaps I apply it too vigorously, but what I “know” is very little, and I suspect that is true for most of the folks. What is hard evidence of one thing tempts us to apply that ‘evidence’ to further claims that are nothing but speculation. Science has much less evidence than we like to pretend, and religion has none.
Don’t get me wrong. Up to a point, I enjoy speculation as much as the next person. Playing “what if” is part of our methodology for exploration of our universe and our place in it. I just see a difference between speculation and daydreaming…
Uccisore wrote:
What? Wasn’t your delete key working? 
It has nothing to do with your sincerity. Part of the problem is that much of your posting has created the polarity of hard lines between God HAS to exist (knowing), and your stereotyping the term atheist as saying that God CAN"T exist. (more knowing) You leave out those who are capable of agnosticism. The so-called “atheists”, most of whom are really agnostic, aren’t supposed to respond to claims that God is the default position? 
Yes, the is -isn’t debate swirls around, but you helped create it.
Proof God exists , proof God does not exist.
simple really, if you know God exists then God exists for you.
If you know god does not exist then God does not exist for you
If you have doubts either way then god does and does not exist for you.
Right hand
Left hand
Ambidexterous
Up
down
Middle
I believe Tent. Put forth a meme argument before.
Perhaps one must be physically receptive to a particular energy to believe or know Gods exist.
If you are not receptive then God does not exist. If you are wishy washy then you may be able to be receptive but you need fine tuning or its not quite all there.
So proof becomes impossible for either side. Its like handing a left handed person right handed scissors and tell them to use it as well as a right hander would. Tain’t gonna happen. A left hander can practice but, they won’t be entirely comfortable with it. Because its not correct for them.
This argument about who is right, God or no God becomes moot when seen as You either got it or you don’t. Its niether good nor bad its just natural.
Niether side is going to win, ever. No amount of death, time or science will ever prove one way or another. If you can’t get it you can’t get it. if you can you can.
You can beat a legless dog for not standing up but, it is pretty stupid, petty and downright egotistically mean to do so. That Dog ain’t ever going to stand.