that God, or who- or whatever it is (if it exists at all) is not going to do anything to prevent people from killing each other. Never has, never will. Of course, the idiotic statement some GOPer just made to the effect that there wouldn't be school shootings if kids prayed in school is belied by a whole rash of church shootings. If he/she/it won't stop school shootings where people aren't praying, why isn't he/she/it stopping them where people are?

but if it's not that, clearly any deity that might exists is clearly not paying attention or is unwilling to do anything to protect children in such circumstances. And, as you say, prayer isn't doing much good, either.

It strains the whole concept of a loving deity, as far as I'm concerned. That, for me, is additional evidence that no such things as deities exist at all. Others have a different point of view, of course. How they maintain their point of view, though, is beyond my understanding.

Proofread before mounting thine high horse.

versus one where they do exist, but never do anything to interfere?

It's sometimes called the "watchmaker god" theory. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1218&pid=284975 I'm not advocating for it, just pointing out that it's a theory.

If you can't (or don't want to), just say so. Thanks!

I'm an agnostic. I don't know whether there is a deity or a force or whatever, and I don't especially care. If there is or isn't, I can't do anything about it anyhow. I can't know which, if any, is the "correct" religion so as to worship the correct god. So I leave others to their beliefs or their non-beliefs and try to stay out of arguments that are bound to go nowhere or change anyone's minds.

I do find theology and religious studies interesting as aspects of anthropology and sociology and how they reflect and influence the behavior of societies. I have no argument with religious people as long as they stay out of government and don't harm people. Other than that, a god could exist, or not. It doesn't matter much to me.

I don't either.

Why do you consider yourself an agnostic, but I consider myself an atheist?

I can't definitively say there is no deity or force, although I am skeptical of the existence of the Abrahamic God/Yahweh/Allah. But maybe he does exist. I dunno. You may consider yourself an atheist, but since I freely admit that I don't know and have no way of knowing (and that it doesn't bother me not to know), I prefer the term agnostic, which literally means not knowing.

Do you think atheists claim to "know" gods don't exist?

There seems to be as much variation among atheists as there is among religious people. But... not my circus, not my monkeys. I won't argue about religion and I also won't argue about what constitutes atheism.

Because it always seems people deploy vague or wishy-washy language like "agnostic" because they're afraid of how they'll be perceived if they state plainly that they don't believe in gods.

I'm not afraid of being shunned or whatever for saying I'm an atheist; the reason I don't claim to be an atheist is because I don't consider myself to be one. I'm someone who doesn't know, and the term "agnostic" is not wishy-washy at all because it specifically means not-knowing. Actually, I should probably call myself an agnosto-apathetic, because I also don't care - either about the existence of a deity or what people think of me because I admit I don't know.

Maybe when you're not busy juggling indecipherable buzzwords no one uses in common parlance, consider the the disservice you're doing to those not too scared to state plainly what they are.

'Cuz I don't.

Are there any gods? Possible answers
-Yes
-No
-Maybe

I answer maybe. So I am agnostic.

That's the point.

I don't know if there are gods, but I don't believe there are any. I'm agnostic and atheist at the same time.

I don't say it may be true but I don't believe it.

That's it.

We don't hold a special "I don't know" spot for belief in any other unproven beings, like unicorns or leprechauns. Either you believe in them or you don't. Why do gods get a special category?

I say there is some uncertainty for two reasons
1) God is defined in such a way that it is the only being that actually could defy all our attempts at detection, unlike leprecauns.
2) People have spiritual experiences that lead them to believe in God. In fact, I think this is why most believers believe. I realize it is probably just their own brains generating feelings and thoughts, but it's also possible there is more to it than that.

I don't consider either of those reasons particularly strong, so I lean towards atheism, but I still say "I don't know for sure."

So I'm really unclear why people insist that "not knowing for sure" makes them an agnostic.

It technically makes you an agnostic atheist, which is what most of us atheists are.

...and since pretty much everyone you run into—theist or otherwise—is agnostic about the existence of gods, atheist is the more specific, distinguishing descriptor.

See trotsky's asnwer in #65.

Since you're not a theist, you don't either.

So are you just as "pretty sure" as me?

I know elephants exist, I don't believe or not believe in them. I know leprecauns don't exist, it's not about belief either. I don't know if there is life on other planets, I think there might be, but I am not certain. I would use "belief" there in the sense of opinion without certainty.

I don't use the term "theist" outside of this group, because it is insufficiently descriptive and I would never describe myself that way. If you believe in a god, you believe in a certain god or type of god. Being a "theist" seems to come up a lot in this group because some people want there to exist a generic creator with no specific qualities.

So could unicorns. So much of this depends on definitions of course.

But atheism in no way implies certainty.

I don't actually think this, and while I can imagine what I might consider to be evidence for it, I'd say there is zero chance of anyone producing such evidence. Likewise for leprechauns. I would certainly look at any evidence if it were presented. If someone caught one and put it in a cage, that would be evidence. What do you think that the probability of that happening is? I say it's absolutely zero, not 0.000001. My estimation of the probability certainly COULD be wrong, but that's okay, I've been wrong before. I am used to it. I've got no fear of being wrong on this one.

This conversation began when someone took another agnostic to task for calling themselves agnostic. Turns out the term is "wishy-washy" and also turns out that atheists are actually agnostics too, and I can be both. Well that's fine if you feel that way. I understand what you mean.

But what I mean by agnostic is that I am uncertain. It's not that I believe or don't believe. It's that I am uncertain about it. I suspend judgement until further notice. I don't say it because I want to be wishy-washy. I say it because it is my actual opinion. There is no reason for me to be wishy-washy. No bad thing would happen to me if I said I was an atheist. My family won't disown me, my friends won't care, I won't lose my job and I live in a solidly liberal, secular area where religion is not a common topic of conversation.

I do lean towards the atheist view, but for me, I would have to say that there is no chance of God existing. Like I say there is no chance of leprechauns existing. I am a 100% certain aleprechaunist. Maybe other aleprechaunists are not 100% certain, but I am.

It's impossible to be certain about whether things like gods, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. exist or not, unless they are so specifically defined that you can rule them out that way. What if a leprechaun is defined as a small Irish man with a red beard who owns some gold? Well heck, even though I've personally never met one of those, I would think such a leprechaun would be very likely to exist. With gods you can see the confusion, because any smart believer is going to know not to give their god any specific traits or characteristics that could be analyzed or tested. Of course the gods who HAVE been defined like that are easy to dismiss.

I just don't like people buying into the notion that in order to be an atheist, you have to KNOW gods don't exist. That is simply not true. But it's the basis of a lot of bullshit "other side of the coin from religious fundies" comparisons. Or the "atheists say there are no gods, but they can't prove that! Atheism is based on faith!! Nyah nyah boo boo!" nonsense.

Last edited Thu May 24, 2018, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

If someone wants to redefine them as something else, fine we can talk about alternative definitions, but I know the little magical creatures don't exist.

I am not trying to pin you to what fundamentalists do. They claim complete certainty for themselves and then demand you share their certainty about your own beliefs. That's not what I am talking about.

I think you can prove there are no gods. They say "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." But actually, in some cases it is. There is no evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex still exists. The fact that we've explored almost every inch of the earth and we could not have missed a creature that size for all of human history is generally taken as proof that they are all gone. You don't have to claim absolute certainty, but the lack of evidence in places where there ought to be evidence does lead to a particular conclusion. That's proof enough for me, but I realize others might have a different view.

I don't believe in most of the gods that have been proposed, but I think there could be something like the Hindu Brahman or a universal spirit. The only tests I am aware of for this god is that people enter mystical states and claim to experience it. Likely it is just some unusual brain state, but it could also be something more. I've had mystical experiences and they do feel like more than just a regular feeling and they are difficult to explain. If the experience is proof of anything, it is only proof for the person who experiences it, and so not scientific or something to force on others.

But it depends on the specific definition, doesn't it? That's my point.

I think you can prove there are no gods.

Well now I'm confused. That means for sure you're an atheist, even by the "atheists are certain there are no gods" definition.

There is no evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex still exists.

..on Earth, one might say. It's always possible an identical-enough species evolved on some other planet with life somewhere in the universe. I mean, there could be millions if not billions of planets out there capable of supporting life. But again, a T. Rex has a specific definition which makes proof of its existence/non-existence pretty easy. Again, that was my point.

In my case, I define God as a putative entity that may be contacted through mystical experience. I am uncertain if this putative entity is simply an altered state of consciousness, or is something "out there." Mainly on that basis, I am agnostic. However, other definitions may be shown not to exist.

There are some in the Religion Group that are deliberately vague about their definition, nonetheless, they clearly have one, and they admit there is no evidence for it, but they have faith. Some assert such things, but IMHO it's highly questionable whether anyone in the world actually believes in anything without evidence. It's really just a question of what they consider evidence, even if they don't say so.

A lot of people consider the Bible as evidence because they believe it is a history book. They believe it's a history book because someone they trust, like their parents or their pastor told them it is. And they never questioned that. Plenty of evidence it is not a history book, but they didn't question any further.

Other people may admit the Bible is not a history book, but nonetheless believe it records real human encounters with a deity. They may believe this because they did question what their parents told them, but still find comfort in clinging to their childhood illusions. So they still use it as evidence, but inconsistently, so they can preserve at least the form of religion.

That doesn't imply certainty at all. Anyway, certainty isn't required to be an atheist.

There is more than one, and when I say I don't believe in something, it means I think it doesn't exist. Do you mean the same thing, or something different?

I'm not certain of it. There may be such things as gods, but i don't believe there are any. I also don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, abominable snowmen, or shapeshifting reptilian aliens disguised as human beings, controlling all the governments of the world for their own nefarious purposes. Maybe, someday, someone will turn up some compelling evidence for one or more of those things. In the meantime, I don't believe any of them exist.

So for those, I know they don't exist. For God, I think there is non-zero probability he does exist, or maybe a universal spirit or some other such thing, so that's why I am agnostic.

They were thought to have gone extinct 66 million years ago. And yet ...

But our knowledge of the deep sea is fairly limited and was even more so in 1938 before modern geophysical methods and submersibles. And we still find new species all the time, so there is always a possibility we will find something unexpected deep in the sea, or a small new species in the remote Amazon jungle. But we've looked very closely at Loch Ness with different methods, and there is no way we could have missed such a large creature in a relatively small lake. So I still say the probability is zero. We aren't going to find any giant dinosaurs in a hidden valley somewhere either. Maybe 100 years ago, it was possible, but now we've explored enough of the earth to know there is no place left for them to hide.

As for alien lizard creatures, don't we have one in the Oval Office now?

Certainty is a spectrum. I doubt very many claim absolute certainty no matter how sure they might seem to you.

they seem a lot more sure than I am, and that's fine with me. On the other I absolutely certain that leprechauns do not exist, therefore I can say I am an aleprechaunist.

Atheism isn't the inverse of agnosis. Gnosis is.

And you don't need to read minds. By pretty much every indication, we can't know anything with absolute certainty. Yet we don't feel the need to distinguish between agnostic quantum physicists and gnostic quantum physicists. Why treat the question of theism differently?

that applies to all human affairs. I am not treating theism any different than I treat all other question. If someone asks me "Is it raining outside," I will answer "yes," "no" or "I don't know," based a combination of actual knowledge -- such as being outside a few minutes ago, and a subjective assessment of the accuracy of that knowledge -- such as the rain appeared to be tapering off, so my current knowledge may not be accurate.

The philosophical possibility that I could be hallucinating about standing in the rain while it is actually sunny outside does figure into this.

Atheism doesn't imply, entail, or otherwise depend upon certainty. It is a state of disbelief, and that is all. We've been down this road a thousand times already. I really don't know how else to put it.

I am not attacking your right to call yourself an atheist. I am defending my right to call myself an agnostic. You have a state of disbelief. Fine. I don't share it. I have a state of not knowing. Not knowing means to me that I neither believe or disbelieve. Belief is not part of the equation for me.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing, and belief is a binary proposition. You either believe or you do not.

Look, part of my frustration with this issue is the lack of context from the "agnostic" position. This isn't just about what you personally prefer to be called. It's also about social pressure to identify one's self as literally anything but atheist, those who bow to that pressure, and the disservice they do to those who do not. You can dress this up however you want, but at the end of the day you're explicitly giving creedence to the notion that "agnostic" is a more moderate and therefore more palatable term than "atheist". What do you think that implies for people who call themselves atheist?

You can either believe that or not. But if you don't believe that, you are going to have a hard time communicating with me.

Belief isn't. You aren't describing a neutral state between belief and non-belief, but an abundance or lack of confidence in said belief.

And I could just as well say I am a theist but I don't have a lot of confidence in my belief, as I am an atheist but I don't have a lot of confidence in that either.

You're not describing agnosticism. You're describing confusion.

And you don't tell me what I believe. Deal?

I'm telling you you're using incorrect terminology for spurious reasons and thereby giving strength to tropes used to marginalize atheists.

This accurately describes what I am.

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

The first part of the definition describes most self-professed atheists. The second part is a popular definition, and like most popular definitions it is vague and confusing (like the popular definition of the word theory).

As we have already discussed, the term is used colloquially by believers to sort non-believers by order of preference, the ludicrous idea of "not being committed" to a non-belief being indicative of that purpose.

I sort myself as agnostic, and the idea of "not being committed" is far from ludicrous, lot's of us are not committed to lots of things. Does escargot taste good? I am not committed to yes or no, since I never ate them. Does intelligent life exist on other planets? I think probably yes, but I am not committed to that, there being no direct evidence of such. If the idea of "not being committed" sounds so ludicrous to you, I suggest you think long and hard about how many things you don't actually know about, or no very little about, therefore you are not "not committed" to a position on them. What is your position on who I should for court judge in the next election? i assume you are "not committed" since you don't know where I live and even if you did, you probably don't know anything about who is running for judge here. And if you are committed on that issue, please tell me who to vote for, because I sure don't know.

"Broadly" is not the key word in the definition, the key word is "unknown." Atheists may claim to also be agnostic, because gods "may exist, but they don't believe in them," but if anything, that is the bullshit position. Because lots of atheists call religion "bullshit," "delusional," "nonsense," "lies," and so on. Sure, you hold the THEORETICAL possibility that gods may exist along with leprechauns and unicorns, but do you seriously believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that an actual leprechaun will ever be found? And I don't mean a short green Irishman, or a little humanoid living in the Andromeda Galaxy, or some future genetic engineered marvel. I mean the thing that we all always mean - the magic little creatures that is said to be living in Ireland since at least medieval times. You and I both KNOW there is no such creature, nor will any evidence of such a creature be found.

So don't give me BS that you think there "may" be gods. You don't think that. You are NOT an agnostic. I AM an agnostic, because I think there actually is some evidence (though I consider it weak, it's strong enough to be uncertain). So what's reason to be uncertain yourself? Because everything is uncertain? Because you can't prove a negative? Now that's bullshit! I can prove you didn't kill Julius Caesar. It's actually quite easy to prove that you didn't. So if you don't believe in gods, don't believe in them. If you don't believe in the possibility of certain knowledge, that doesn't make you a real agnostic, that makes you a philosophical skeptic. You can call it agnosticism if you want, I don't care, but don't pretend like you REALLY doubt your own beliefs, just so you can get agnostics on your "team" in order to counter those nefarious theists you are trying to keep you down, because theist actually like agnostics better.

They may say they like agnostics better, but in reality, most of them don't. The ones who have a problem with atheists mostly also don't like members of other religions, and don't like other members of their own religion who follow the wrong version, and they don't like agnostics either. There are no atheist OR agnostic members of Congress. There is one "unaffiilated." I don't get represented either.

I have never given atheists any grief for their beliefs. And I've not given agnostic atheists or atheists who claim to be agnostic, or any other type of person who is not theist any grief. Until now. Because you are giving me grief for mine. More than I have ever gotten from anyone, anywhere for it, simply because you have decided for me what I "should" believe, what I "should" say or think and what the "correct" definitions are (or in post 140, even what the "correct" reading of a definition is), all while pretending that's all perfectly reasonable to tell someone that. What other kind of people do we both know that say stuff like that? Don't tell me you are agnostic on THAT question.

Last edited Thu May 31, 2018, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I told you belief is not binary and you would not understand me as long as you think it is. Google "degrees of belief" if you want to learn why. Or continue pretending to be an agnostic aleprechaunist just so you can look down on actual agnostics.

People with fevers are febrile, people without fevers are afebrile. Now, some of the febrile people have higher fevers than others, but the basic question is whether or not they have fevers. Similarly, people with religions are theists, and people without religions are atheists. And clearly some of the theists have higher fevers than others, but the basic question is whether or not they have a religion.

On a fundamental level, I'd suggest that if you don't have a religion, you are "without religion" and there's a word for that.

with an arbitrary cutoff above which they say you have a fever.

When we talk about liver function, or creatinine clearance, or BNP levels, or left ventricular ejection fractions, or blood pressure, or whatnot we have an actual range which healthy people demonstrate and the conversation is about "within normal limits." And different labs and hospitals actually sometimes have slightly different ranges they consider "normal" on a lot of these.

But "normal" temperature doesn't have a range, unless you consider 37 degrees to 37 degrees to be a range. They didn't arbitrarily pick that out of thin air, that's the normal temperature they've established by checking the temperatures of billions of people at multiple points in their lives. "Afebrile" is 37 degrees. We've got a pretty good grip on the math for this one, backed up by more formal and informal experiments than anything this side of gravity. Some rare individuals do run on a slightly different temperature, but some people also have three kidneys. It's not necessarily bad, but it is definitely not normal. Normal is two kidneys and 37 degrees.

When you go to the hospital, your doctor will establish whether you are febrile or afebrile because it's part of the decision-making flowchart. If the answer is yes, then they worry about how much of a fever you have, why, and what to do about it. But it is impossible to make it out of a hospital visit without either "febrile" or "afebrile" appearing in your record. Go ahead. Try it. It can't be done.

There is indeed a spectrum for having a fever, but the spectrum starts at "no." It's kind of like the spectrum for how much cocaine you have in your system, or how broken is your leg. Or how religious you are. Zero appears on all of these scales. If you don't have a religion, or a fever, or cocaine, or a broken leg, or a Playstation, or whatever, then you don't have them. We have terms for people without certain things, and those things are chosen quite arbitrarily, but people without a religion are called "atheist" just the same way people without fevers are called "afebrile."

You also can't make it out of a hospital without an actual temperature reading on your chart.

The "normal temperature" of 98.6 was established in the 19th century using axillary thermometers that would not be accurate enough for modern use.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/08/the_average_body_temperature_is_not_986_degrees.html

Normal temperature ranges by person, time of day, exercise, outside temperature, sex etc.
https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/normal-body-temperature#1

A 1992 experiment found that average temperature is 36.7 C and suggested that a fever begins at 37.7 C rather the tradition 38 C, but the range they found in healthy persons was from 35.9 to 38.2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1302471
http://saidsupport.org/normal-body-temperature-periodic-fever-syndromes/

A 2008 experiment suggested that older people had lower body temperatures therefore, lower fever points should be used.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18705705

And what exactly happens in the body at 37.9, 38, 38.1 or 38.2 that is so different? Probably very little, but we have to draw the line somewhere, to catch as many potentially ill as possible and avoid saying healthy people might be sick.

And we haven't even considered hypothermia which begins below 35 C. But that doesn't happen so much, so medical charts don't need to state that a person with a temperature of 37 C is ahypothermic.

And there is still a matter of definition. I consider myself to "have religion" because I do participate in some religious rituals, but that's not the same as being a theist. Buddhism is generally considered to be a religion, but Buddhists on this site have said that it is not a religion. Buddhism officially has no gods, but many Buddhists have in fact worshipped gods as part of some traditional practice, or they may perform acts of worship or ritual in front of statues of the Buddha, who is not a god. Buddha himself said he was agnostic, but according to you, 2500 years later, he must have been an atheist?

Some religions, like animism and shamanism, may not have any gods at all, just various spirits that are in a continuum with human beings and animals. Are these religions atheistic, agnostic, theistic, or just have no idea what we are talking about?

And all of that is just for the formalistic definition of "fever" in medicine. If we were looking at temperature from the point of physics, chemistry, microbiology or forensic medicine, we'd have a whole bunch of different scales.

And to wrap this all up, if a person with a fever is febrile, and a person without a fever is afebrile, what do you call people without thermometers or with broken thermometers? What do you do if you have two thermometers and one gives different readings from the other?

I've only scratched the surface of why I think even a simple thing like a fever is really non-binary (even if we have to make it binary for diagnostic flowcharts). I just don't think in binary. Sorry. I just don't.

Not much else to do, really.

Yes (Rational person...likely Democrat in the USA)
No (Bleeding Idiot and likely shill for carbon-based energy company, definitely a Republican in the USA)
Maybe (Someone in need of a good kick in the pants to make up their mind...)
?

When a binary question is under consideration, the insertion of a tertiary, non-committal answer simply games the question...it is refusing to take a position because the proposition makes one queasy or unsure of what they want to say if fear of reprisal was not a factor.

Is there a god that cares deeply about butt sex, alcohol use and abortions; but could not care less about starving children, AIDS epidemics, poverty or disproportionate distribution of resources and wealth across humanity?

Did this same hypothetical sociopath decide to create a universe that stretches for BILLIONS of light years in all directions to simply use 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the available space-time for absolutely nothing (no life, no 'chosen peoples' in other galaxies, no other anything?), and then place 10 special rules for living on a subset of a single population of a nondescript species of primate derived hominids?

NO, there is definitively NOT such an abomination - and those who profess to believe in such a monster simply will not admit that they do so out of misplaced familial loyalty/tradition (circumstantial acceptance of the beliefs of one's fore-bearers) or misplaced desire to see others suffer (and to gleefully celebrate such an eventuality with ghoulish anticipation bordering on the sexual energy of prepubescent little boys), sadly it is the latter more frequently than the former...just watch the gleam in their eyes when they talk about the hellfire that await the unbelievers...its sickening to behold, really quite disturbing truth be told. It is this very specific reaction and response from the true zealot believers - the rooting for torture of non-believers as a reward for their "belief" - that makes me confident in the proclamation that there is no such 'god' in existence.

As for other conceptions of a non-personal deity that does nothing? If they do nothing and have no power to intercede or change the course of events, what does it matter if they exist or not then?

So I am a-Abrahamic God.

I chose to go with probability and say there is no other kind of god either, but to each their own!

That's why I offered both possibilities in my original post. How could one tell whether there was no deity or there was a deity was completely unconcerned with human behavior?

In either case, religious belief seems illogical to me. Prayer and supplication seem useless in either situation.

Prayers have a variety of purposes. The "Santa Claus" god version is the only one I think you are referring.

In the first, there is no Creator.
In the second, the Creator started the process, and in an exercise of free will, allowed everything that subsequently happened to happen.

but never intervene, any different from a world where gods don’t exist at all?

I believe that the Creator exists. I believe that the Creator is the reason that existence exists.

What facts about the world would be different?

Nothing would be different in my view, because this planet would still be populated by tribal humans.

Wars would still occur, and the same general level of violent and good acts would still occur.

But apart from that, I want you to explain how the universe would be different in the two scenarios. What would we experience in your second scenario that we couldn't possibly in the first?

I gave it.

As I figured. Thanks.

I told my wife tonight.."if there's an almighty God that cares and loves for us then why...xyz?" Ugh...the hardest question I've ever ask my wife is "if there was a holocaust then why??" FYI....I told my wife of ten years tonight I was an atheist, which I'm pretty sure she already knew, I just pray she accepts me for me in the morning.

The onus should be on people to prove something does exist. No evidence to date proves any deity exists.

Every double-blind study on the effect of prayer has found that it has no effect whatsoever. In fact, placebos have more of an effect. Prayer certainly may be personally comforting and I'll bet it releases some endorphins to make the people doing the praying feel better.

But it doesn't do squat. So someone in the equation is mistaken if they think there is a deity that listens to and cares about prayers. It seem illogical to believe in something that has no effect. But, of course, people believe in Trump and there is no explaining that either.

There are different concepts of a diety. Seven if I remember correctly. IIRC there are only 2 of them where a deity would intervene in any sense and prevent these things.

There is no evidence to the contrary.

And by most concepts (I might be forgetting one or two), there isn't supposed to be evidence.

You know, that almost sounds like a post hoc rationalization.

Considering the quote is most likely apocryphal.

Overused and inappropriately used most of the time, to boot.

Unfortunately, we're not.

Not an after thought .

3,000 years of recall? Man, I can't even remember what I had for breakfast.

I also do children's birthday parties, weddings, and the occasional brit milah.

who were provided with tons of evidence, according to the stories. Furthermore, the original Apostles were given the power to perform miracles themselves, so none of their recruits had to rely on faith, either. Paul got a personal visit from Jesus. John got an incredibly detailed revelation and wrote about it. This whole idea that evidence is bad seems to have come much later.

Lots of the people in Bible stories were provided with evidence for the existence of God. Did that evidence render their faith worthless?

Jesus had to wander around after he got executed in order to convince people they ought to believe his mumblings. But that is old-timey faith. Now that we have YouTube and smartphones and nothing happens that didn’t get recorded, faith would be worthless with evidence.

Except of course the RCC keeps cranking out saints with documented certified miracles. It seems sometimes faith and evidence are incompatible and sometimes they aren’t.

Doesnt faith end when your shown the focus of your faith?

Why is faith more valuable than knowledge, or belief based on evidence? The fact that the Bible stories have God revealing himself, directly or indirectly, to so many people seems to count against that idea. He didn't mind that they based their belief on evidence rather than faith.

I don't think it's voluntary. I don't have any faith in any deities. I don't believe any of them exist. How could I will myself into believing something I don't believe? The best I could do would be to pretend to believe.

Ignores a 3rd option that he is there .

what I think. It is, rather, a conclusion I draw from the available evidence. Please reread the post.

"You'll hear the "Free will" argument, as well. Of course, the shooter exercised free will. There was nothing to stop the shooter from killing children. Again, the supposed deity was either absent or doesn't exist in the first place. Human beings can and do act as they choose. "

That is my conclusion, based on available information. It is also my opinion. It is not an "assumption." Words have definitions. English has grammar and punctuation that clarifies meaning, as well.

There is a signature line on every post I write. I suggest that you read it. There is also no reason for you to be sorry that those are my words. I wrote them, not you.