Devil's Advocate

I don't see it as a matter of choice. Truth/reality is what ever it is. I've never seen or heard anything to convince me of the existence of gods, ghosts, demons, heaven or hell. Anyone wishing to influence others on the basis of their religious beliefs needs to make a convincing case. Treating others with respect and honesty only makes sense if I wish to be treated with respect and honesty, myself. Snipping off bits of my childrens' anatomy because a bronze-age goatherd says a burning bush said we should makes no sense at all.

In other words, I see atheism as a null hypothesis. A stationary, flat Earth was once a null hypothesis for the very good reason that Earth appeared flat and stationary - until you looked more closely. I am not aware of any amount of examination that has ever produced evidence of a god.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

As for the second paragraph. No one has ever produced evidence showing that god could not possibly exists.

There are an infinite number of things this could apply to. So what? Is every possible figment of someone's imagination equally plausible just because you can't disprove it? See Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

To be fair, this isn't really an answer to the original question. When it comes to personal beliefs no one can say what is the "right choice" for someone (or everyone) else. If people want to believe in omnipotent beings without any supporting evidence they should have that right. As long as they don't try to insist that I have to share their beliefs (or allow my children to be taught their delusions) I don't care if they want to believe in fairies & magical unicorns or the resurrection of Elvis.

There are some atheists who do attempt to "convert" theists but there are many who do not. Most people who don't believe in gods or belong to any religion don't really care what others want to believe as long as they don't insist on inflicting their beliefs on the rest of us.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Well briefing is a choice but other then that i agree with the first paragraph.

I'm guessing 'briefing' is supposed to be 'believing'?

If that's the case then I would say we would have to define 'believe' before we can reach agreement on whether it is a choice or not. Personally, I can't choose to believe anything. I can be convinced (tentatively) that the preponderance of evidence (or the simple likelihood) supports a particular belief but choosing to believe something without any evidence (or in spite of the evidence) is just silly and has no bearing on what is actually true.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Yes, anything that makes a statement of certainty are all equally plausible.

Bullshit. Plausibility is directly proportional to supporting evidence and inversely proportional to contradictory evidence. A claim or idea can seem quite plausible at first but turn out to be nonsense upon investigation. Some claims may not be testable (eg: Russell's teapot, Sagan's dragon, God) but their 'undisprovability' doesn't make them equally plausible with testable ideas or claims. Do we need to locate and examine every single giraffe that exists to be reasonably sure that pink giraffes with purple polka dots don't exist? If we allow that we can't prove that no pink with purple polka dot giraffe ever existed anywhere at any time do we then have to allow that pink with purple polka dot giraffes must exist?

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

The atheist statement "there is no god" is a statement of certainty. So, Atheism = Pastafarian = Judaism = etc.... but to keep it simple lets reduce it to theism and atheism.

Although I have met atheists who state certainly that there is no god they are few and far between. Anyone who claims to know there is no god is making the exact same kind of unsupported claim as a theist. Let's not go down that pedantic 'dictionary atheist' road.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

In contrast knowing is not a choice and believing is but i do understand that someone may feel like they need to believe.

What if the things you 'know' turn out to be wrong? How do you define knowing? What do you mean by 'need to believe'? Pretty much anything we think we know could turn out to be partially or completely wrong. When we say we know something we really only believe it with a high degree of certainty. The idea of needing to believe something is just another way of saying that we want it to be true which has nothing to do with degrees of certainty.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Plausibility is directly proportional to supporting evidence and inversely proportional to contradictory evidence.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Blondin

A claim or idea can seem quite plausible at first but turn out to be nonsense upon investigation.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Some claims may not be testable (eg: Russell's teapot, Sagan's dragon, God)

but in theory they could be one day the teapot probably sooner then the others.

Originally Posted by Blondin

but their 'undisprovability' doesn't make them equally plausible with testable ideas or claims.

I agree. Its there provability.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Do we need to locate and examine every single giraffe that exists to be reasonably sure that pink giraffes with purple polka dots don't exist? If we allow that we can't prove that no pink with purple polka dot giraffe ever existed anywhere at any time do we then have to allow that pink with purple polka dot giraffes must exist?

This is not the same the we have what would be called normal giraffes but a purple polka doted one is still possible just very very unlikely. There is a reason why we can every thing a theory. So your trying to telling me that for example you 10 ideas and they all have the same amount of prof they are not equally plausible.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Although I have met atheists who state certainly that there is no god they are few and far between. Anyone who claims to know there is no god is making the exact same kind of unsupported claim as a theist. Let's not go down that pedantic 'dictionary atheist' road.

Then there agnostic and you should inform them. Dictionary definitions are not pedantic that sort of the point of dictionaries.

Originally Posted by Blondin

What if the things you 'know' turn out to be wrong? How do you define knowing? What do you mean by 'need to believe'? Pretty much anything we think we know could turn out to be partially or completely wrong. When we say we know something we really only believe it with a high degree of certainty. The idea of needing to believe something is just another way of saying that we want it to be true which has nothing to do with degrees of certainty.

If the things you 'know' turn out to be wrong then you have a new state of knowing "such is science". Look this is a red herring start a new thread and ill join you. There is no need to argue over this i told you how i define it. Just tell me how you define it and all we need to do keep that in mind. (using "" quotations I think is the best way to go).

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

but in theory they could be one day the teapot probably sooner then the others.

If and when a claim is testable then we can talk about its plausibility. The whole point of the teapot and dragon fables is that they are examples of claims that have been designed to never be testable. Try to pin down a testable claim from a religious believer. Every possible acid test you can think of is met with some reason why that wouldn't work or wouldn't prove anything. They think it's a strength of their belief system that it can only work on faith because there is no evidence and nothing can ever be disproven. The closest we come is double-blind tests of intercessory prayer and they have never indicated prayer to be effective.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

I agree. Its there provability.

No. There is no such thing. Proof only applies to mathematics. A proof can only hold if it is true for all cases. No matter how many experiments you might contrive to test a theory it could all fall apart tomorrow with one more test.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

This is not the same the we have what would be called normal giraffes but a purple polka doted one is still possible just very very unlikely. There is a reason why we can every thing a theory. So your trying to telling me that for example you 10 ideas and they all have the same amount of prof they are not equally plausible.

Why don't you get a dictionary and look up the word 'theory'. Like 'atheist' you'll find there is more than one meaning, depending on context, and in a scientific context a theory is vastly different from the more common connotation of 'a hunch'. Your 10 idea statement makes no sense. If you substitute the word evidence for prof[sic] then we come a bit closer to something that makes sense but then we would be changing the subject completely because we are talking about claims for which there is no evidence - only unsubstantiated claims.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Then there agnostic and you should inform them. Dictionary definitions are not pedantic that sort of the point of dictionaries.

Bullshit (again). Dictionaries are shaped by language; not the other way around.

If you're such a fan of dictionaries could I suggest you use one to look up there, their and they're. And while you're at it look up then and than.

And maybe you could try proofreading before you post.

I know I'm being snarky but this atheist/agnostic bullshit, pedantic, semantic drivel really fucking annoys me.

Originally Posted by Blondin

If and when a claim is testable then we can talk about its plausibility.

OK so atheism is not plausible because its untestable. I agree?????

Originally Posted by Blondin

No. There is no such thing. Proof only applies to mathematics. A proof can only hold if it is true for all cases. No matter how many experiments you might contrive to test a theory it could all fall apart tomorrow with one more test...............

"A proof" is a math term "proof" I would say is interchangeable with "evidence".

Originally Posted by Blondin

Bullshit (again). Dictionaries are shaped by language; not the other way around. If you're such a fan of dictionaries could I suggest you use one to look up......

Actually it shapes language and is shaped by it. Its akin to us and the world we shape and are shaped by and I do not like or dislike dictionaries. Your the one who seems to need and or like dictionaries. You do not need to run to a dictionaries when you don't understand we are talking you can just ask me to clarify.

Originally Posted by Blondin

And maybe you could try proofreading before you post.

I think its fine you understood it well enough.

Originally Posted by Blondin

I know I'm being snarky but this atheist/agnostic bullshit, pedantic, semantic drivel really fucking annoys me.

Its OK I forgive you???? Just don't say things you will feel sorry about latter.

"Love your enemy for he is why you have your covenanted spear." - Larry C. Rilea