Bumble Bee Tuna

No evidence.

DMB

JC: You wrote:
As has already been pointed out again and again, an atheist's lack of belief is not the same as a certainty in the non-existence of god. There are, however, huge numbers of clues pointing to particular religions being based on ignorance, obsessions and con-tricks. My position in relation to god(s) is that I cannot rule out the existence of some sort of intelligent creative principle, but I can rule out the YEC position (unless god is merely a con-artist). I do recommend you give very serious thought to the Kissing Hank's Ass idea, because it is a simplified model of how religions work in practice.

The reasons why the existence of god seems so obvious to some theists has a lot to do with their experiences during their upbringing and a certain amount to do with their individual personalities. You could ask an equivalent question:

How was it that to many Germans during the first half of the 20th Century it seemed obvious that Jews were evil, subhuman schemers, plotting the downfall of decent Aryan people?

I chose this particular question because I judge it unlikely that you would agree with this belief. Of course, had you been a mediaeval xian, it would probably have made good sense to you.

Now if you seriously ask that question, and work out what made so many Germans harbour that belief, I further suggest that the reasons for having that particular belief are not all that different from the reasons for believing in, say, the xian god. I don't in any way equate the beliefs, but merely the reasons for becoming strongly attached to a belief that is common in one's surroundings.

spurly

There is no compelling reason to not believe in God. Thus I believe that he exists.

Kevin

Mageth

There is no compelling reason to not believe in God. Thus I believe that he exists.

And the obligatory reply: which god?

Philosoft

Nice try, but... this only works if you assume a God-belief is the initial state. If you take the more reasonable and defensible position that atheism is the initial state, the God-concept must first be learned, then a compelling reason to believe must be generated. Thus, your assertion becomes, "There is a more compelling reason to believe than not."

Vorhis the Wolf

Genesis clearly states that god created man when he created all other life. I dont see how the whole rise and fall of the dinosaurs could happen between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. I mean they say "1.1 ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’1.2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.’ I dont see how the wrld could be "formless and empty" but still have dinosaurs roaming around on it.

This part is the real rub of it, "theologians have dreamed up several explanations to get around the problem of dinosaurs" If the bible was any form of the truth or the word of god then they wouldnt need to make stuff up. Theologans cant claim that we werent the first becaus then they are in direct contradiction with what genesis says. Then you have to wonder, who is right, the priest who says that there might be a mistake in the bible or god who through the tool of the bible says that he made man as one of his first creations??

the_cave

Thanks for reading. I'll acknowledge most of your points. Though I'd like to respond to your first couple of them. First, it might merely be a debate over semantics, and I think I might start perusing the philosophy boards rather than this one, but debates over semantics are important. We're meaning-creatures, and what words and observations and experiences mean--both semantically and emotionally--matter to us. At bottom, it might be a debate over aesthetic judgments about nature, and its relationship with us and our meaning-world. I think aesthetics is an underappreciated branch of philosophy, but that's a lecture for another day. I will also say, though, that calling what I'm (we're) talking about "Big Bird", for example, would not be acceptible. First, it's not anything anyone would seriously call it, so I don't really need to take the suggestion seriously (nor can you seriously make it, I would argue). But secondly, "Big Bird" just doesn't refer in any way at all to the kinds of things I'm talking about. Big Bird refers to a specific puppet, and that's about the extent of it. "God", on the other hand, has a very long history of refering to many concepts, some of which I'm refering to when I use the name. So I think there are appropriate names, and inappropriate names. Maybe the label means nothing, but labels are how we address and know and understand the world; even if they're only intellectual or emotional labels in our heads. This is quickly turning philosophical, rather than religious (even though, to my lights, they're very similar things), so I'll quit here and leave further comments on the subject to the philosophy boards.

Well, I'm trying to talk about god in a non-subjective manner, as well, so I'm not sure this point applies to me, though it's a good point. I'm trying to find ways to unite our subjective experiences of things and the objective world that those subjective experiences are about, and a part of.

Ha

Fair enough, and your points are well-taken. I agree I've been vague, mainly because I'm more interested in the possibility of defining God in the kind of terms that I've been talking about. In a sense, it's an abstract concept, and it could be a nebulous concrete entity, and as such, it could also be a specific deity. I could wax on about it at length, but that could get tedious, and I'm not sure this is the place for it. But you've at least let me know a little about what "God" might mean, or means, to you, and I'm a little satisfied with your explanation. It's at least a starting point for future discussion, something we can at least agree on as a possibility. Since you've let me use the term "God" in the manner that I've stated, I'll affirm your manner of experiencing the universe. I think it might not be so different from some of the ways in which I myself experience it, and even from the ways in which more religious believers than you might suspect experience it. I think this agreement is more than most people accomplish on these boards, so I'm satisfied for now.

JubalsCall

Everyone had pretty good answers.

But I have another objection/question which I'm sure someone will help answer.

The whole default argument only works if you know what answer is right. May be the default answer is for a deity? Atheist are making an assumtion that their belief is the defualt because they think that god(s) is a positive argument.
But what if everyone is born with the default of God and atheist are really the ones going against the default mode of Humans that god(s) put in us? Of course no one can know because you'd have to first believe in a god(s) to have that one make sense. (So please don't remind me of that)

Also is there any evidence that shows either way? Have they ever done test to see if the deity idea had to be taught or if it is automatically known?

I could be totally off so if anyone can please clear it all up for me. Thanks

Tibbs

MollyMac

How about "You expected me to believe a beneficiant god made the Ichneumonidae?"

And that, btw, just about sums up the reason I suddenly stopped believing in the sky daddy at the age of 13.

JubalsCall

What is Ichneumonidea?

Tibbs