It's easier to accept that there is some intelligence or rationality that is the reason for the existence of the universe, and that rational force is influencing us in some ways, through religion, through philosophy, etc.. than it is to accept that there is a being with a personality that some people or groups of people have access to, and others don't.

So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".

The pros- Religions can be a force for good.

The cons- they can also cause people to harm others based on prejudices or rules that their religion promotes.

There are a lot of cons - too many to list, really. I've been reading Bertrand Russell's Why I'm Not a Christian. That contains some of them.

"It's easier to accept that there is some intelligence or rationality that is the reason for the existence of the universe, and that rational force is influencing us in some ways, through religion, through philosophy, etc.. than it is to accept that there is a being with a personality that some people or groups of people have access to, and others don't.

So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".

The pros- Religions can be a force for good.

The cons- they can also cause people to harm others based on prejudices or rules that their religion promotes."
--anonymous66

I guess this is a common perception among people that are neither really religious nor anti-established religion, but I'm not really sure if it is either here or there. What I mean by that is your 'good' is kind of it better for there to be some hope whether it is false or real than no hope and/or desperation that might exist without it and the 'bad' is that people often use religion as an excuse for carrying out harmful acts that might not do otherwise. However there is not a lot to go on as to whether either of it is true.

First, if a religion gives false hope then at times I believe this could be counterproductive in that more often than not it is better for us to face truth than to hide from it and even if religion gives us some reprieve from negative aspects of reality, this reprieve could be either counter productive or give a net result of neither being really productive nor counter productive. If either of these are the case than this false hope isn't a 'good' thing really.

As for religion allows people to harm others, even though I'm an atheist I'm not really sure if this is just a hasty generalization and this is true.What I mean by this is that all societies have either some kind of religion or system of beliefs that helps explain the world around them and what they 'ought' to do so it is more or less a given that some of these religions or systems of beliefs may make the groups more aggressive/hostile than others EVEN if almost ALL of them preach peace and tolerance of some kind. Because of this, I believe it is more accurate to point out the aspects of what makes a religion or system of beliefs more aggressive/hostile than others than to just say that some of them are. Or at least that is my two cents on the matter.

"There are a lot of cons - too many to list, really. I've been reading Bertrand Russell's Why I'm Not a Christian. That contains some of them."
--Sapientia

Could you expand on that a little since it might be helpful to know a little more about this.I know that sometimes it is better to say less than more but your post almost takes that idea to the extreme. :D

So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".

There's not much of a significant difference here. The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. The universe is only guided by rules dictating the mass, energy and movement of its phenomena.

The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. — Thanatos Sand

Strange that there are such disciplines as mathematical physics, then.

The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept.
— Thanatos Sand

Strange that there are such disciplines as mathematical physics, then.

Strange that you don't know the word "rational" encompasses and/or denotes more than mathematical physics and other such disciplines.

Of course this is likely because I'm an atheist — dclements

Well, if you say you're an atheist, then it's a fair assumption that you know what an atheist is - or certainly you have your own idea of it. I, however, do not. And here's an opportunity to ask. What do you say an atheist is, at least in terms of your own atheism?

One thing, if you make it as simple as you don't believe in god - or any god - i shall have to ask you what you imagine god to be, because I do not know what that is, either.

"There's not much of a significant difference here. The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. The universe is only guided by rules dictating the mass, energy and movement of its phenomena."
--Thanatos Sand
In what context are you using this in since it could be from a variety of paradigms and it doesn't sound like a thing that most Christians would say since if there is no "rationality" or "good" that it is sort of a given that there is no God, but than again your definition of rationality or good may be different than what is commonly used.

"Well, if you say you're an atheist, then it's a fair assumption that you know what an atheist is - or certainly you have your own idea of it. I, however, do not. And here's an opportunity to ask. What do you say an atheist is, at least in terms of your own atheism?

One thing, if you make it as simple as you don't believe in god - or any god - i shall have to ask you what you imagine god to be, because I do not know what that is, either."
--tim wood

That is a great question and I will try to answer the best I can in order to give it the justice it deserves.

As with many atheist, some of my beliefs are more agnostic (ie unsure if there is a God) than atheist, but since it is difficult to argue something when you tell people you don't know it is a given it will undermine your own argument. However even if I am an agnostic I'm very certain that even if there is a God that the theism/church doesn't do whatever the will and/or word of God any justice in how they go about spreading what they believe is what he wants. One of the things theism promises to those that consider whether to believe in theism is the true word or not is some kind of coherency. Part of the reason for this is because any institution can claim that God tell them his word through whatever "God talkers" they have used or listen to but it isn't a given that all "God talkers" hear his words correctly or are really even talking to him when they think they are. Since some people have no idea as to which books have the real word from people who have been directly contacted from God and have written his word correctly they submit to blind faith and believe the church in what it say, however I am not one of these people.

Before I go further I think I should mention two types of theism that are kind of exceptions to this problem with one being Unitarian Universalist and the other being Gnosticism. Unitarian Universalist are more or less open to people of all faith (which is kind of hard for me to wrap my head around if they are a really a Christian faith) and Gnosticism is sect or schism of Christianity that got wiped out by the main church hundreds of years ago because they talked about tolerance toward all religions and the creator of this universe is evil (because it is imperfect) which of course is heresy according to main stream Christianity. Not much is known about Gnosticism really believed (since most of it comes from Christian sources), but I believe their beliefs are not that much different than what you might have if you mix Dharmic and Christian belief, and/or something like modern day Unitarian Universalists if such a group could exist hundreds of years ago without being immediately wiped out.

I guess at some sort of instinctual/gut level, what Christianity says doesn't add up since the church and the people who are part of the church seem to be more interested in protecting the church and their own interest (which amounts to some form of materialism if you think about it) than to think and/or perform some actions that are transcendent in any way.

Also I guess part of it has to do with the fact that when I was a kid there seemed to be no middle ground with the church, you either was a believer or you were not a believer and I was told even if I tried to be 'good' it didn't matter since God only care about whether someone believed in him (ie. believed in him as he was described by the church and the bible) and if you didn't accept it than it was your problem not theirs. Since I had trouble believing in God since before the time I even attended preschool, it only got hard to believe as I got old and started questioning things more often than before.

I don't have any source I quote from but there was a book that I remember reading as a teen that mentioned why most religions believed in many gods and/or limited gods was because of the problems that exist in the world (ie such as the existence of dukkha) make it VERY difficult to explain how the world is the way it is yet there to also exist a all powerful, good god. This is similar to the problem of evil but more along the lines as to why we just can't pretend there is something like God out there when there is nothing to why things are so messed up down here. The book I read this from went on to describe that even the most primitive people understood this paradox and would experience distress when they encountered people who claim they had (or at least heir church had) DIRECT ACCESS TO A god BUT TO THE "GOD". In fact in many places before Christianity started really spreading, it was punishable by death to talk about such things and/or to try and spread such heresy. This obviously seems a bit harsh, but in theory a person or persons who have direct access to God doesn't have to obey any rules (or moral codes for that matter) other than what "God" tells them is right or wrong. And while it may seem a bit paranoid to think that even one person who "talks to God" can cause complete social upheaval/mob rule when too many people follow this person, but history has shown it to happen and even during the times when Christianity was at the height of it's power they where just as ready to kill someone who talks to God (such as Joan of Arc who they claimed was a witch) than to reconsider that what Joan believed was more in line with what God wanted than what the church was doing.

If there was a God I think he would be closer to what some people call "collective conciseness", and a being that would want us to learn how to be more emphatic to each other than a God that has no understanding or consideration for the human condition, collecting as much money as possible, and a God that is interested in creating hierarchical organization and bureaucracies. To me it seems hard to see anything divine in all of it when everyone is told it is "ok" to be wrapped up in their own tiny world as long as they believe in God. I guess I'm just more comfortable with Buddhism and certain Dharmic beliefs and philosophies than that which is in Abrahamic religions.

The one person who studied and wrote about it who is sort of ht exception to this is Soren Kierkegaard since he took a more rational approach to it than those who tried to guess at what God might want them to do or become. Kierkegaard himself was someone who didn't really agree with the church of his time and in a way created his own "bible"/manual on how he thought one ought to live in which morality become just as important if not even more important than believing in God. To me when I sort of read between the lines, it is more about someone being able to put something above themselves (whether it be family, a work of art, a book, some goal,etc) than about worshiping God in any way and for him such people who could be completely dedicated to their cause he thought of them as "knights of faith". One of the examples of these is Abraham from the bible while another example I have seen used is Don Quixote. On one small note it is uncertain if it is even possible for such people to exist since it is plausible that our human inhibitions, vices, weaknesses, etc may allow one to try but never really become a "knight of faith" without going insane and at which point one would merely be an insane person doing things because they are crazy and not a knight of faith. If there is one example in history where a real person became a knight of faith, I like to think it was Joan of Arc but t is hard to know if she was the real thing or just a bit crazy.


Well it is 2 am and I need to punch out. I hope I answered some of your question and haven't been just droning on since 12 pm like I fear I have..

There's not much of a significant difference here. The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. The universe is only guided by rules dictating the mass, energy and movement of its phenomena."
--Thanatos Sand

In what context are you using this in since it could be from a variety of paradigms and it doesn't sound like a thing that most Christians would say since if there is no "rationality" or "good" that it is sort of a given that there is no God, but than again your definition of rationality or good may be different than what is commonly used.

No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition.

"No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition."
--Thanatos Sand
It is pretty much a given that your statement (or any statement coming from anyone) is coming from some context/paradigm unless all you are doing is trying to blow air past your teeth and waste your time as well as our own. As a person partial to nihilism, I'm aware of how the whole "God", "morality" and "rationality" stuff are loaded words and mostly made up (or at least I'm aware of it on my better days), so I'm not entirely interested in it unless you really have something to add that I haven't really come across or perhaps even come across not that often. Even if someone is a nihilist they have to subscribe to some sort system of beliefs because it is part of the human condition to do so, and when doing so they adhere to some kind of "morality"/"rationality" even if it is merely hedonism or some kind of fabricated set of rules.

"No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition."
--Thanatos Sand

It is pretty much a given that your statement (or any statement coming from anyone) is coming from some context/paradigm unless all you are doing is trying to blow air past your teeth and [waste your time as well as our own.

No, that isn't clear at all, and you haven't shown it to be. So the only one trying to blow air past their teeth and waste their time as well as our own is you.

As a person partial to nihilism, I'm aware of how the whole "God", "morality" and "rationality" stuff are loaded words and mostly made up (or at least I'm aware of it on my better days), so I'm not entirely interested in it unless you really have something to add that I haven't really come across or perhaps even come across not that often. Even if someone is a nihilist they have to subscribe to some sort system of beliefs because it is part of the human condition to do so, and when doing so they adhere to some kind of "morality"/"rationality" even if it is merely hedonism or some kind of fabricated set of rules.

No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that. And I don't care what you have interest in as I don't predicate what I say on what other people want to hear, particularly when they are people whose intelligence I don't particularly respect, as your last few posts have made you one of those. As to your last sentence starting with "even," it is an irrelevant nonsequitur that doesn't address what I wrote In any way.

"No, that isn't clear at all, and you haven't shown it to be. So the only one trying to blow air past their teeth and waste their time as well as our own is you."
--Thanatos Sand
I'm well aware of the fact that I may only blowing air past my teeth as well as all my other actions are for nothing, but at least I try to make them count which is just about all one expect another human being to do. And while wasting ten years in studying/debating philosophy may not be enough for me to have learned any better by now, it isn't a for lack of trying or for giving some thought to certain matters. Just saying...

If there was a God I think he would be closer to what some people call "collective conciseness", — dclements

I agree with this - except that I believe that he/she/it/they just are personifications of collective wisdom and nothing else. This not as empty as it sounds: for example, numbers are products of collective wisdom, knowledge of which is unquestionably useful. Organized religions, then, are just codified metaphoric wisdom - sometimes pretty wise, more often not, historically most often not. And it's my guess that religions express their respective wisdom in the ways that they do because that the best way wisdom can manage it.

In short, I understand atheism to be the declaration of non-belief in supernatural beings. That is, a rejection of certain ideas or their particular expression. Clearly this a limited belief, which is fair enough.

Some folks get carried away and proclaim their non-belief in anything. To my way of thinking, such claims are completely foolish, and the people who make them fools. Doesn't Anselm say, "Even the fool knows in his heart...".

My argument is quick and runs this way: atheists who proclaim general and global disbelief (instead of local and particular) in effect proclaim belief in nothing. A reasonable belief, if there were nothing to believe in. Last time I looked, however (just now), there wasn't - isn't - any nothing. The whole world is bulging with somethings. QED (pretty much).

And atheists of any stripe reject the good of religion, that collective wisdom for which they are repository. This is just plain a mistake. Admittedly, it is work sometimes difficult to listen to any religion as it expresses itself in non-natural terms and translate where possible "on the fly" into rational discourse. But the fact is that's where that wisdom is, and that's the work that needs be done to get it.

Agnosticism is simply immature atheism and unattractive in any adult.

"No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that."
--Thanatos Sand

Actually I dropped out of high school and got a GED so my education may be lacking a little in certain area, although I guess I'm about as much a product of American society/education system but I'm pretty sure that is true of you too more or less. Even if I claim to be a person "partial to nihilism" it doesn't mean I'm able to avoid aspects of the human condition which it seems that you are implying I'm saying which I think is due to you mis-reading my posts.


"And I don't care what you have interest in as I don't predicate what I say on what other people want to hear, particularly when they are people whose intelligence I don't particularly respect, as your last few posts have made you one of those. As to your last sentence starting with "even," it is an irrelevant nonsequitur that doesn't address what I wrote In any way."
--Thanatos Sand

If you really don't care what interest people have or what they think how do you hope to successfully articulate your posts and/or have people return the empathy you likely expect them to return which you do not give in the first place? I think the term "forum trolls" is used for those who wish to rant and rave about that which interest them while at them same time while at the same time ignoring the interests of everyone else; and this seems to be the kind of mentality you have. My two questions for you is if you don't care at all what I have interest in, why should I have any interest in what you think is important. I for some reason I acted in a manner similar so you, then we are be so disinterested in each others positions (as well as anyone that did the same thing) then what is there to discuss on this forum?

I'm not saying you have to have a lot of empathy to have a discussion, I'm just saying you have to have enough to be willing to articulate your position well enough so that someone else may be able to understand it, and perhaps re-articulate it again if you left something out or if the way you worded it in some way was hard for the people reading it to absorb: without freaking out or getting too upset in the process.

I don't know if what you are trying to say is important, but I can trying to find out feels like I'm trying to pull teeth from you. You may not appreciate the aggressive/ interrogative like tone of my reply posts when I need to extract information or meaning from you or sometimes with other people, but if you or someone else is unwilling to explain your position than all I can do is either ignore it or try to interrogate (lightly interrogate you that is) whatever it is out of you.

I imagine as a third option I could also try to blow enough sunshine up your backside until you feel like telling me more, but I very rarely feel like going through that in order to just find out what it is that you are thinking so don't blame me if I chose the second option instead of this one.

And atheists of any stripe reject the good of religion, that collective wisdom for which they are repository. This is just plain a mistake. Admittedly, it is work sometimes difficult to listen to any religion as it expresses itself in non-natural terms and translate where possible "on the fly" into rational discourse. But the fact is that's where that wisdom is, and that's the work that needs be done to get it.

Agnosticism is simply immature atheism and unattractive in any adult.

Atheists don't reject the good of religion; they reject the existence of God. Many atheists, including myself, recognize the good Christian abolitionists and other ethical people drawing strength from religious faith. Most of us just don't believe there's an omnipotent--or any-potent--supernatural source behind it all. That is not a mistake, since there is no substantial evidence such a being exists or that such a being needs to exist. Theres' much more wisdom in the world than religious wisdom; the mistake is to reject wisdom--religious or not--but not to avoid rejecting religious belief itself.

Agnosticism is simply the inability or refusal to commit to theism or atheism. It's neither immature nor unattractive and has its own wisdom, since atheism itself cannot be proven and arguments can be made, if not convincingly, for the existence of God.

"No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that."
--Thanatos Sand

Actually I dropped out of high school and got a GED so my education may be lacking a little in certain area, although I guess I'm about as much a product of American society/education system but I'm pretty sure that is true of you too more or less. Even if I claim to be a person "partial to nihilism" it doesn't mean I'm able to avoid aspects of the human condition which it seems that you are implying I'm saying which I think is due to you mis-reading my posts.

No, it's not true of me more or less since I correctly recognize those words have specific functional meanings and are not "loaded" words, as you erroneously claim. And I never implied any such thing, so the one who is mis-reading posts is you.

I think the term "forum trolls" is used for those who wish to rant and rave about that which interest them while at them same time while at the same time ignoring the interests of everyone else; and this seems to be the kind of mentality you have.

The incoherent ranting and raving you did in your last four paragraphs shows the only forum troll in our exchange has been you. And you described your own mentality perfectly. So, you and I are done here. I won't be reading or responding to anymore of your posts.

P.s. You may want to add to that GED of yours.

Atheists don't reject the good of religion; they reject the existence of God.... the mistake is to reject wisdom--religious or not. — Thanatos Sand

Fair enough.

Agnosticism is simply the inability or refusal to commit to theism or atheism. It's neither immature nor unattractive and has its own wisdom, since atheism itself cannot be proven and arguments can be made, if not convincingly, for the existence of God. — Thanatos Sand

Proofs engender agreement/acknowledgement/acquiescence, commitment neither required nor entirely appropriate. Commitment, on the other hand, requires at the least a step or a hop of faith. To not commit is a form of commitment. To commit to non-commitment is an absurdity. Absurdity and inability are not hallmarks of mature character.

Keeping in mind that a person can commit to beliefs that are modified versions of other folk's beliefs, or even those that are uniquely his own. Non-commitment to my sacred cause is not non-commitment in toto.

Requiring proof of posited supernatural beings like God, ghosts or Santa Claus is just being a rational grownup. And to say one needs to commit to such supernatural entities to make a commitment is truly absurd.

Requiring proof of posited supernatural beings like God, ghosts or Santa Claus is just being a rational grownup. And to say one needs to commit to such supernatural entities to make a commitment is truly absurd. — Thanatos Sand

People profess all kinds of things when it comes to religion and I can only speak for one: Christians say, "We believe...". This in no way to be confused with anything needing proof, or even being susceptible of proof. To require proof, then, is simply to misunderstand the nature of the beast. And fair enough, If I cannot accept something as a matter of faith, I might well - I do - consult the possibilities for proof. Absent both faith and proof, all that's left is to make the best of it and try to make sense of it. In any case, absent faith or proof it's a mistake and a waste of energy to keep looking for them.

To require proof, then, is simply to misunderstand the nature of the beast.

No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you.

If I cannot accept something as a matter of faith, I might well - I do - consult the possibilities for proof. Absent both faith and proof, all that's left is to make the best of it and try to make sense of it. In any case, absent faith or proof it's a mistake and a waste of energy to keep looking for them.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you. — Thanatos Sand

All right, what is the thing for which no sufficient evidence is presented?

I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him.

Sorry I'm late in replying...

"I agree with this - except that I believe that he/she/it/they just are personifications of collective wisdom and nothing else. This not as empty as it sounds: for example, numbers are products of collective wisdom, knowledge of which is unquestionably useful. Organized religions, then, are just codified metaphoric wisdom - sometimes pretty wise, more often not, historically most often not. And it's my guess that religions express their respective wisdom in the ways that they do because that the best way wisdom can manage it."
--tim wood

Part of the reason I'm late in replying is that sometimes it is harder to address a post that I agree with than one I disagree other than of course simply remarking about that I agree. I think one small nuance I might add is that sometimes religion/philosophy (to me good religion isn't that different than philosophy) can add a kind of wisdom that goes above and beyond common sense or is counter intuitive but I guess even that kind of wisdom doesn't really require religion itself so I guess you might be right about that too.

Also I think western religions express their wisdom the way they do is so one either has to go through them to obtain it so in a way they seem like "they own it", much like how corporations (and their army of lawyers) own and protect the protects and intellectual property since if anyone could have easy access to it and/or have access to it from multiple sources it might undermine their organization in some way.

But still if they are the keepers of wisdom I guess that is better than the keepers of hypocrisy which is what sometimes they are thought as by atheists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In short, I understand atheism to be the declaration of non-belief in supernatural beings. That is, a rejection of certain ideas or their particular expression. Clearly this a limited belief, which is fair enough."
----tim wood
I personally think of it as the belief in processes(ie everything is made of of simple mundane processes) vs the belief in spirits (before we understand how to control/manipulate processes for ourselves we use to think "spirits" and "magic" made everything in our world possible. I personally think that most religious people often think in terms of 'spirits" when dealing with the unexplained while people like atheists think that those things we can not account for yet are merely processes that are not well understood yet.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some folks get carried away and proclaim their non-belief in anything. To my way of thinking, such claims are completely foolish, and the people who make them fools. Doesn't Anselm say, "Even the fool knows in his heart...".
--tim wood
I can say that I pretty much agree since this was a topic of conversation with....um another forum member I replied to and although I was willing to say that my beliefs and perception of the world are greatly influenced by the human condition and the narrative I follow, the other forum member thought it was insulting to suggest that the same thing applies to them and/or that their views are biased in any way. To me this is usually a means to test the experience and/or wisdom of the person I' talking to since more senior debaters are "ok" with saying they are as flawed as any other human being but since it is true of us all then it doesn't undermine their own position. However sometimes a person I'm talking to gets upset with calling them and their position "flawed" in any way shape or form and they just about go ape you know what on me.

When this person is a fellow atheist it makes me wonder if atheism as a system of beliefs can ever have enough of a unified voice to contend with the problems caused by theism and/or the fact that theism is organized and we are not quite so yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And atheists of any stripe reject the good of religion, that collective wisdom for which they are repository. This is just plain a mistake. Admittedly, it is work sometimes difficult to listen to any religion as it expresses itself in non-natural terms and translate where possible "on the fly" into rational discourse. But the fact is that's where that wisdom is, and that's the work that needs be done to get it."
--tim wood
I think it might be that sometimes atheist when they get tired of theism that they often go off on a tangent and just reject and rebel against that seems like it is somewhat like religion even if it is more about common sense than religion per say. I think part of this is caused by theism acting like they control everything to do with religion and/or certain aspects of common sense which I mentioned earlier. Also it might help to know that Abrahamic religions for hundreds of years now have been practicing evangelicalism and the cleansing of other types of religions to the point they nearly have a monopolistic powers when if comes to the business of helping those who seek guidance in the form of religion.

I guess what I'm saying is without some easy release from some other type of religion that some (or perhaps many) will turn a deaf ear on anything to do with theism even if some of their teachings are not that harmful and/or are useful in someway. I think this was even true of me at one time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Agnosticism is simply immature atheism and unattractive in any adult."
--tim wood
I'm not sure of this since it is a rational position to believe one isn't experienced enough in any way to know whether there is or isn't a God, but I might agree that it isn't an easy position to really take since in Western society we are usually force into a "YES" or "NO" stance on many positions and jsut saying "I don't know" doesn't cut it unless you are talking to other people who study and debate philosophy which is almost never the case outside of forums such as this. You could mean something else than this but I don't know at the moment..

It is getting kind of late (after 2am right now) so I better cut out before I get even more incoherent than I already am. Hopefully my posts don't suck as much as I fear they do from me being tired and not getting a chance to post earlier than I did.

I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him. — Thanatos Sand

I'm glad you have replied as you did, because your reply captures most of what is difficult and problematic in these discussions, while grounding it in something itself not too difficult or controversial.

Requiring proof of posited supernatural beings like God, ghosts or Santa Claus is just being a rational grownup. And to say one needs to commit to such supernatural entities to make a commitment is truly absurd. — Thanatos Sand

In writing "Santa Claus," you have given the least possible specification of your thinking, unless the entirety of your thought is captured in "Santa Claus." It may be, but Santa Claus is not a univocal expression, and consequently I do not know what you mean. If my experience is a guide, you don't either. If we start here, neither of us will know what the other is talking about.

If by Santa Claus you mean the jolly fat bearded fellow in red who lives at the North Pole with his elves and who flies around the world in a reindeer powered sleigh on the night of December 24th, and if your issue is that absent proof of the existence of such a fellow you're inclined to resist being required to believe in his existence on faith alone, then go in peace; there's no issue between us.

And this is what I called above a kind of limited "atheism," the non-belief in something specific, which non-belief is defensible and reasonable.

The problem, if there is problem, arises when "Santa Claus" is not adequately understood, and the non-belief is thereby unrestrained with respect to both subject and criterium. If in rejecting the jolly fat man in the red suit for lack of "proof" you also reject what Santa Claus represents (for present purpose understood only as a personification of a gift-giving spirit), then you've made a plain error in rejecting for lack of proof something that certainly exists and is easily provable. This is a sign of infection with what I call "global or general atheism," a hallmark of which is flawed reasoning - that is, being unreasonable and even irrational.

Are you with me so far? There's more, but not worth the rehearsal if you're not up for the trip.

No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you.
— Thanatos Sand

All right, what is the thing for which no sufficient evidence is presented?

I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him.
— Thanatos Sand

I'm glad you have replied as you did, because your reply captures most of what is difficult and problematic in these discussions, while grounding it in something itself not too difficult or controversial.

No, my answer perfectly answered your question and showed how ridiculous your argument is.

In writing "Santa Claus," you have given the least possible specification of your thinking, unless the entirety of your thought is captured in "Santa Claus." It may be, but Santa Claus is not a univocal expression, and consequently I do not know what you mean. If my experience is a guide, you don't either. If we start here, neither of us will know what the other is talking about.

In writing Santa Claus I gave a perfect example of things that should require proof before adults believe in them and, again, showed the flaws in your argument. And no expression is literally univocal but Santa Claus does have a particular meaning and points to a particular mythic/cultural figure. So, I clearly know more than you here.

The problem, if there is problem, arises when "Santa Claus" is not adequately understood, and the non-belief is thereby unrestrained with respect to both subject and criterium. If in rejecting the jolly fat man in the red suit for lack of "proof" you also reject what Santa Claus represents (for present purpose understood only as a personification of a gift-giving spirit), then you've made a plain error in rejecting for lack of proof something that certainly exists and is easily provable. This is a sign of infection with what I call "global or general atheism," a hallmark of which is flawed reasoning - that is, being unreasonable and even irrational.

If you think I actually meant the fat guy in the suit at the mall instead of the fantastical cultural figure, you are having more difficulties than your erroneous argument. So, the only infection of flawed reasoning is in your argument above, and those before.

Are you with me so far? There's more, but not worth the rehearsal if you're not up for the trip.