Atheism isn't a belief?

According to the definition you quote atheism can be "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" therefore atheism need not be a belief.So what exactly is the issue here ?

Well there's a lot wrong with what you are saying.Firstly a position is not impossible because you don't like the arguments for it. The more so when you don't even allow that there might be other arguments,Secondly it is NOT the case that if God existed there would be evidence of that in the natural world (while scientific proof is impossible, evidence is not).Thirdly unless you can show a valid - and easily identifiable and accessible method of investigating the supernatural you cannot accuse others of refusing to look there.Fourthly, lacking belief IS different. It requires no positive case against the existence of God. And since God does not have to be the immediate cause of anything we can observe no belief about the origins of anything we do observe contradicts a general concept of God. Thus all the "something elses" you mention are irrelevant.Indeed the only way it could be impossible to lack belief in God would be if everyone knew that God existed - which surely you can see is not the case.

So you are asserting that it is impossible to base a belief on incomplete information ? If not then how could the incompleteness you refer to make it impossible to believe that there is no God ?To clarify the mistyped point it is not necessarily the case that there cannot be evidence of God's existence in the natural world. If you were correct then any argument for God based on the natural world (such as your proposed new topic) would be automatically wrong.As to your assertion that it is necessary to look ot the supernatural - it seems that you can't offer any way of doing that. In other words since you and other beleivers in the supernatural are unwilling to actually develop the tools you would need to make your case we have to accept that you are right ? It's your responsibility to make your case. And if it is true that you could develop the tools but refuse to do so, then I would have to question whether you truly beleive. Or is it the case that it is genuinely difficult or even impossible to truly investigate the supernatural ? But I never said that the person concerned had to beleive in anythign which "explained it all" - only the immediate causes of the things you listed. There is no need for a person to take any view on ultimate causation, therefore it IS possible to lack belief in God and to also lack belief in a natural ultimate cause. But doing so does not make anyone beliefless about, say, the immediate cause of the Earth or life. Beleiving in a natural cause for the formation of Earth or the first life are as compatible with the existence of God as the belief that I typed this post instead of God.

While individually we are pretty impressive amongst the lifeforms of this planet, we've only manages to occupy a miniscule piece fo the universe for a relatively short period. How then does it follow that a God would be interested in us especially ?Secondly there are numerous conflicting claims of divine revelation. Are they all real ? How can we tell ? And if even some of them aren't aren't how can we be sure that any "revelation" we might recieve is the real thing ?As to your test I have to ask, do you mean it as a real test or if it fails will you just make excuses ?

It's two definitions. Alternative meanings. Don't you know how to use a dictionary ?

Well I find it interesting that you are prepared to go with very incomplete information when it comes to declaring the importance of humanity but are dead set against it when it comes to arguing against the existence of God.Moreover I disagree that only a "revelation" given to me could count. If there is to be any objective assessment of these alleged "revelations" then simply relying on personal experience - and discounting anyone elses won't do. And without that, even if I do get a revelation then it's at most a subjectively convinving experience.FInally I'll tkae you at your word as to the seriosuness of your test. And since I've tried it in the past and got no result we must conclude that you were wrong.

quote:

---

Alternative meanings for the same word?

---

Yes. That's what the numbers are for.

I agree that it isn't difficult. The provided definition clearly allows that it is possible to be an atheist without holding any view on whether a God or gods exist.As to my own point of view a good start is the following points:1) Any God or gods are highly ordered and complex beings - and radically different from anything that we know to exist.2) Therefore any God or gods are, a priori, unlikely to exist.3) Therefore, without significant evidence to the contrary, we are justified in believing that there is no God or gods unless and until further evidence comes to light.4) There is no such evidence at present or any reason to beleive that there will be.Therefore I am justified in provisionally believing that there is no God or gods.And yes, this falls into the "strong atheist" category

Why is it "logical" or "safe" to choose the less likely explanation ?

quote:

---

(funny that a book called the Bible demonstrates all over the place why this should be the case. Not bad for a 2000-4000 year old documnent supposedly written by a bunch of nomads)

---

Obviously you don't know much about the Bible. It doesn't explain any such thing, and to the best of my knowledge none of the writers were actually nomads (and none of it is 4000 years old, either).

No, complex ordered things are definitely unusual and therefore unlikely.If you want a real non sequitur there are plenty in your post.Asking for evidence when I haven't actually said that there is any - and go on to say that there isn't.This is a non-sequitur, too: "You say above that he'd complex and radically different. This means too that evidence would be complex and radically different"So is your assertion that my statememtn that there is no significant evidence or any likelihood of their being any "implies you have an explaination for first cause. A naturalistic one at that." Because I don't need one to make that statement - even if we assume that there is some sort of first cause and have no idea what it is, it does no mean that there is any significant evidence for the existence of a God or any likelihood of discovering it.

So what is this wonderful explanation that the Bible offers and is there any evidence that it is true ?

Well you're still failing to come up with reasonable objections.

quote:

---

The existance of God is not something that probability methods shed light on.

---

Why not ? Why should we avoid rational consideration of the question ? In your next sentence you say "Either God exists or he doesn't" but that is irrelevant - either you'll win the state lottery or you won't. But we can certainly use probability to decide that it is likely that you won't.Compare the etire biomess of the Earth with the mass of the solar system. Unless there's a LOT more life than that on Earth living things from an infinitesimal fraction even on that scale - and are likely rarer still in larger volumes.

quote:

---

Put it another way. He'd be supernatural. Thus the evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence from what he created - the natural) would be supernatural. If that's not complex and radically different then I give up

---

Since the evidence actually available to us would fall in the first category this statement tacitly admits that you were wrong. And since the second is still a non-sequitur I think that you should give up.

quote:

---

I was dealing with the athiest position. No evidence either way yet a decision that God (supernatural) isn't it. If the decision against God is a blind one, made without no evidence either way then fine. In other words, if its a decision for Natural without evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) either way then fine. Either way we can leave it at that. Athiesm joins the ranks of similar faith- based religions.

---

The statement you were replying to only dealt with the existence of evidence FOR God. That was what you were dealing with.