Pericles, we know we are going to die. Does something of our being survive death, i.e. is there an afterlife? This is a natural question to which one must have an answer, no escaping it. "Yes" and "no" are the only answers possible. "Maybe" is not an "answer" but a starting point for finding one. We can only arrive at an answer to the question by faith or by experience, not mathematically.

The god question derives from "How did we get here?". Were we created? If so, by whom? Sorry Pericles, but that question is inescapable for any truly intelligent life form. If there were not theists, atheists would have to exist holding the view that nothing or nobody created us.

david f asked "Would you be kind enough to tell us about your coming to the belief that there is no God? I hope you can express it in words."

I have not experienced God and I am swayed to doubt His/Her existence through science, e.g: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=a%20universe%20from%20nothing&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo&ei=PfkET9RuraOIB-iIib8B&usg=AFQjCNGMXDDhsTplt4TDx9KjtPtn5tc7uA&cad=rja

This is becoming somewhat surreal, Luciferase.

>>Does something of our being survive death, i.e. is there an afterlife? This is a natural question to which one must have an answer, no escaping it.<<

There is absolutely no "must" about it.

While it may well be a question that you ponder, it doesn't cause me one single minute's pause. I can't even imagine why anyone who lacks religious leanings would even bother to think about it, let alone believe that it "must" have an answer.

For me, it is of purely academic interest. Quite fun, in its way, as a question raised at a dinner party by a particularly attractive philosophy graduate, who fixes you with those deep blue eyes and gently tosses her long blonde hair...

But I digress.

>>The god question derives from "How did we get here?". Were we created? If so, by whom? Sorry Pericles, but that question is inescapable for any truly intelligent life form.<<

I do recall having some pretty deep thoughts on this topic. I was eleven. Or maybe twelve. I looked up at the stars, and said, "wow", a number of times.

But once I had learned that there was absolutely no possible reason why the universe had not developed independently of a "creator", I stopped looking for metaphysical alternatives.

>>If there were not theists, atheists would have to exist holding the view that nothing or nobody created us.<<

Not so. As I pointed out before, if there were not theists, nobody could be defined as atheist. As a concept, atheism would simply disappear, and we'd be left with physics and chemistry with which to make sense of our existence.

Which seems a fair enough starting point to me.

Grim,

Thanks for the bizarre reply, but if you go back and re-read my posts, you’ll see that your responses directed at me were ineffectual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Note that we are talking about “agnostic” in the context of atheism/theism.

Luciferase,

That’s why I avoided words like “convincing”. They're too subjective. My last link gave some more objective standards for proof.

Try to get absolutes out of your head too. I never said anything about ‘absolute proof’.

<<Nobody can ever "prove" the existence, or non-existence of a god...>>

I agree that it’s not possible to prove a negative, but how do you know it’s not possible to prove the affirmative where a God is concerned? What about a God makes it different? The actual God itself certainly could, that’s for sure.

All you’ve done here is point out why it’s more reasonable to take the default position of atheism, just as a juror needs to start with the presumption of innocence. Perhaps you’re having troubles identifying the similarities here because atheism actually has a label and we don’t initially refer to jurors as the “Not-Guiltyists”?

<<...it is not logical for you to place that impossible burden upon them.>>

It is when there are those who would label atheism a “faith”. Whether or not theists can provide proof for the existence of their God is not our problem, entirely beside the point and a red herring.

<<You can only leave them to their faith.>>

Yes, at the end of the day, all you can do is leave them to their faith.

But that doesn’t mean it becomes our responsibility to, or necessitate that we, downgrade our own position to a mere faith. Again, that they cannot come up with proof is not our problem. They themselves chose to adopt the belief, not us.

And just as Pericles mentioned that the state we call "atheism" doesn’t itself change, simply because there are people claiming that a God exists, the veracity of atheism doesn’t itself change either, simply because it is not possible for those who believe in a God to provide proof.

Surreal indeed.

so much intersting thought
but i got aj/quote...so go with that...

""does it then also mean..that you have ‘faith’
that fairies..don’t exist..until you do?""

most certainly
as pericules says...non belief
must preceed belief...[one cannot be born "knowing"]

so basing non belief..[a-thiest]..
upon belief..[thiest]..is flawed

so i must know what thiest means..[first]
i suggeast that thiest...based on actual 'reason'
must be based in a particular creed...!..[not a generality that covers them all]

reason can under pin..a faith
but faith..cant underpin reason
proof demands facts

faith just disbelieves
till the facts get revealed

so never having seen fairies
we can reason..they dont egsist...untill its proven they do
[but only..semingly]..in the mind..of the child]

'the-ism'..is derived
from a subversion of the greek 'theo'[god]
so the word..as intended should be theo-ism
and anti-theoism..

[the subversion was wrought via dei-ism]

""theists have not yet..supported their argument""

LOL

well thats cause..theoism-ists..got faith
and need no debate..[need not de-bait]
[cause their claim is belief]
[not anti belief]

theism..[the-ism]..of anti faith in god
but as said before most hate[detest]..religeon/creed
specificly the one that fu kket them over..or was allowed abuse

often hating one specific
used to generally revile [blame/deney]..them all

""with anything...!""
...""that doesn’t either have..a more rational"""

lol
arguement?

then some disjoioned joinders

""and naturalistic explanation..(e.g. personal revelation,
living organisms)..or commit..a logical fallacy..(e.g. God of the Gaps).""

rational rationalisations..
and naturalistic explanation

arnt personal rev-elation

naturalistic might relate to...''living organisms''
but natural ensures..it WERNT SCIENCE

natural belongeth to god
[if only as a trust]

that is if you want to claim
NATURAL..selection...as opposed to science selecting

The existential atheist is Pericles, wandering, not wondering, not inquiring, merely an organism responding to stimuli. This new position releases him from his most recent chicken/egg theist/atheist one, and any other for that matter.

AJ, we agree that theists are best left to their faith lest we seek a fight. Until they actually impact upon our lives to the point of making it miserable, they are best left alone, much like snakes.

If you plan on going militantly into the snake-pit (the "main event" Pericles sees coming, not sure what that is, holy war?) then I hope our joust has been a sharpening practice session for you.

I've enjoyed my time in the "room". Happy 2012 to all, gotta go back to work

natural s-election...
is just another pyramid..rating system

from this..*un-named
first life..to man...[lol]

lowerr orders to higher orders
then the other pyromid[with kings at the head]
govt solgers etc..then the scummy believers doing
as the decievers tell them to do

nuthing..to ignorant ape..
to man..to king..to god
but kings dislike god being held over em

better we discredit god
with fairy tales sold to kids
like science evolution [nurture]
claiming to be doing what only god can do..[naturally]

over a hundred..*ape mutations
over billions of years..then abruptly..
[only 80,000 years ago..lol

lol

huh?-man appears...
and athiests arnt gullibale enough
to acept a 2000 year old virgin birth...lol..]

but do swallow
that unprovable..evolving theory*..[tripe]

if god owns anything
he owns nature's nurture!

ape breeds ape..man breeds man

i got billions of egsamples..where that has happend!

i bred fish..that bred fish..
chooks that bred chooks

science has bred googilians [100 zero's]
of MUTATED fruit flies..[from fruit flies]

THE RESULT..*fruit flies...!
not one evolution into new genus

not one evolution EVER..into a new genus..EVER

HAS ever been recorded observed..nor witnessed

yet out faith
god done it...lol..needs proving?

lol
prove ya delusional theo-ry!

ya lot of
a-theo-ists

Therefore,..lol..they still bear
the burden of proof and you don’t have NUTHIN

but ‘faith’
in a theory*..of genus evolution...

not one science fact!

my point still stands
regardless of how you word it
lack of faulsifyable EVIDENCE...is a testament to that a/science FRAUD

ya got nuthin
even got the wrong name
ya lot of anti-theo-ists