Common Folk

Common as... wrote: »

Could you say a little more about this reasoning.As in, during your life so far was there ever anything you've seen,heard or any situation that made you question if a deity existed.

There is no verifiable truth to any proposed idea of a supernatural entity. If I heard a voice speaking in my head, I'd assume it was an auditory hallucination. If I saw a burning bush, I'd assume someone lit it on fire when I wasn't looking.

I can categorically state that there has been no situation which has made me think that a deity might exist.

Common as... wrote: »

Thanks,I hear ya.
But im finding it hard to get my head around this.So just to be clear, I'll ask again.Are you saying that even when you were young there was never any pros and cons about it, in fact there wasn't even enough pros to consider it.
For example, say you knew someone you considered to be very clever and they believed in a deity, would that not make you consider the possibility

Would you say that your like most atheist or is it that you are hardcore?

Both of my parents were atheists before I was even born so I wasn't raised with any particular religion. I was taught about the major religions as a matter of history by my parents.

When I started going to school, I got myself withdrawn from religion classes because it wasn't a very balanced view and I saw no reason to subject myself to it. I was taught to value reason over blind faith. I think about religion and god quite a lot. I enjoy reading about it, I enjoy talking about it and debating on the topic.

There is a difference between considering the existence of a deity in an academic sense versus using personal experience as an argument for the belief in a deity. There is no truth value to a theist's position that a deity exists any more than there is in an atheist's position that a deity does not exist. It is the basis on which that decision is made which imparts any real knowledge.

The only basis for a belief in a deity comes from personal experience, either from oneself or from someone else. This in no way imparts any value of truth on their beliefs.

The basis for atheism can also come from personal experience. But, the key difference is that atheism can be based on other things as well such as science and reason, the most reasonable of which (in my opinion) is that there is simply no evidence that such a being exists.

There are only 2 options as far as I can see. There is a god and there is no god. Theists take the position that "there is a god" to be the default position while atheists take the position that "there is no god" to be the default. To deviate from these positions requires an impetus.

So you might say that the best default position is to be in the middle, there may be a god and there may not be a god.

But think of the following: Your dad comes to you and says that he has an invisible, undetectable friend. This friend can read your thoughts and decide whether you are going to spend eternity in ecstasy or suffer damnation. You ask him to prove it and his response is that "No, the obligation isn't on me to prove it, it is on you to disprove it.". Suddenly, with the aura surrounding the word god removed, you can begin to see how ridiculous the notion is.

The quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rings very true. The two claims of "there is a god" and "there is no god" do not hold equal status because of the fact that according to the understanding and observation of everything around us in an objective manner, there is simply no reasonable way to say that there is a god. The belief in something without evidence. That's faith.

This whole "was there not enough pro's to even make you consider the possibility" is nothing more than a thinly veiled display of wishful thinking. And as for the intelligent people believing in god and whether that would influence me, no it would not. It is simply another example of belief based on personal, subjective experience which is not a good enough basis. Subjective, personal experience does not impart any truth value to objective reality.

I would call myself an agnostic atheist. I.E. that I do not think that there is a god, but I cannot know for sure.

Sorry for the essay :pac: