Question for Athiests/Agnostics

[Mayor Adam West]

No, I'm not looking to start a thread for arguing. ;) A buddy and I are interested in reading a book giving the atheist perspectives and arguments. We were thinking through some of the well-known ones and came up with The God Delusion, Letter To A Christian Nation, God Is Not Great, and The End of Faith. For those of you who have read any/all of these -- which do you feel is the best representation of your thoughts, or is the most well-written book, etc. Basically, which would you recommend we read? Or is there another that you think is better?

Thanks for your help.

(and yes, I realize now after posting that I misspelled atheist, dangit)

[SamTheEagle]

Go with "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. Why would you limit yourself to fluff written in the last 3 years?

[1695814]

(and yes, I realize now after posting that I misspelled atheist, dangit)use the thread tools, move it to the reef, and then move it back. During the course of either move, you may rename the title.

[Westley]

Interesting, I had the same question recently, while in an airport bookstore (I got the Tucker Max book instead, but that's a separate thread). Would also be interested in hearing what they actually address - history of religion, logic of evolution versus creationism, evils perpetrated by religions in the name of God, whatever. I have no idea what any of these cover, and would be interested in knowing what they cover - I suspect there's not much new here, as Sam points out quite well.

[JMO]

use the thread tools, move it to the reef, and then move it back. During the course of either move, you may rename the title.
Or you could just leave it in the reef. j/k ;)

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

I thought that Letter to a Christian Nation was concise and to the point. The other ones listed are good as well, though.

[Anitha Desai]

I have read "Letter to a Chritian Nation" , "The End of Faith", and "The God Delusion". I liked the God Delusion the best. The End of Faith, IMO kinda made concessions to Buddhism, almost making it acceptable to be Buddhist. I really liked the God Delusion because he talks about evolution of morals, and the creationism vs evolution debate also. As is expected in any book written by an atheist about atheism, there are details on the spanish inquisition etc., that I had a difficult time reading. I do need to read Bertrand Russell.

[Anitha Desai]

Oh, and Leter to the Christian Nation was directed towards the people who live in the US, if that makes any difference. That one's a short read, and you can read it anyway.

[Anitha Desai]

Not to hijack this thread, but....

If anyone knows a book that talks about atheism specifically from an eastern philosophy/religion POV, I'd appreciate it. All the books I have come across "expose" the non existence of God in the Abrahmic sense.
TIA.

[Mayor Adam West]

Go with "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. Why would you limit yourself to fluff written in the last 3 years?
I thought about that. I've never read any Russell...how readable is he? Does it get pretty deeply philosophical?
use the thread tools, move it to the reef, and then move it back. During the course of either move, you may rename the title.
Too much effort. You'll have to live with my error.
I thought that Letter to a Christian Nation was concise and to the point. The other ones listed are good as well, though.

I have read "Letter to a Chritian Nation" , "The End of Faith", and "The God Delusion". I liked the God Delusion the best. The End of Faith, IMO kinda made concessions to Buddhism, almost making it acceptable to be Buddhist. I really liked the God Delusion because he talks about evolution of morals, and the creationism vs evolution debate also. As is expected in any book written by an atheist about atheism, there are details on the spanish inquisition etc., that I had a difficult time reading. I do need to read Bertrand Russell.

So DJZ would vote for LtaCN, and AD would vote for TGD. Any others?

(me likey abbreviations...aka, mla)

[Mayor Adam West]

Oh, and Leter to the Christian Nation was directed towards the people who live in the US, if that makes any difference. That one's a short read, and you can read it anyway.

When you said directed towards people who live in the US, does it take a political angle, like combatting the Religious Right or something? That would probably turn me off, since I don't identify with political Christianity.

[Lucy]

Interesting question. I haven't read any of them, but I have friends who might have. I'll have to check back here and see what gets recommended.

It's my opinion that people are born with, for lack of a better term, a "religious drive", and are attracted to religion just as they are to food or sex. The strength of the religious drive varies higely from person to person. You can take that as either an argument for the existence of God (why else would we have such a drive) or as an argument for why people create and cling to religions (there are alternative hypotheses as to why people might have such feelings, of course.)

But one result of that is that people are very unlikely to be swayed towards or away from belief by logical arguments. So books along the lines of "why I'm an atheist" can be an interesting read from the perspective of the moral development of that human being, as any good memoir can be engaging, but are unlikely to change other people's minds.

[Bamafan]

I've recently read both The God Delusion and God is Not Great. I thought both were pretty well written.

The God Delusion focuses more on reasons to be an atheist. God is Not Great focused on why religion is bad. Definitely more philosophical/logical arguments in TGD. I would recommend both. I intend to read Russell's book soon.

[L. Mo]

I read The End of Faith about a year ago - it was good, but it turned into more of a doctoral disseration - the last 100 pages or so were a hard slog.

I recently read god Is Not Great - Hitchens is brilliant - I say that because he makes it clear on every page. I think he makes valid points, but I'd rather he do it without calling those who disagree with him "stupid" (maybe he should post in Political ;))

[Bamafan]

But one result of that is that people are very unlikely to be swayed towards or away from belief by logical arguments. So books along the lines of "why I'm an atheist" can be an interesting read from the perspective of the moral development of that human being, as any good memoir can be engaging, but are unlikely to change other people's minds.

These books can definitely push someone in that direction, though. Someone who is questioning their faith or lack thereof should gain some clarity of thought on the positions they hold/question.

[Mayor Adam West]

It's my opinion that people are born with, for lack of a better term, a "religious drive", and are attracted to religion just as they are to food or sex. The strength of the religious drive varies higely from person to person.
You sound like a Calvinist! Reformed theology would call that "religious drive" some combination of unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistable grace (i.e. the ULI of Calvinism's TULIP acrostic). Not that I necessarily agree with those notions though, just thought I'd add that perspective.
But one result of that is that people are very unlikely to be swayed towards or away from belief by logical arguments. So books along the lines of "why I'm an atheist" can be an interesting read from the perspective of the moral development of that human being, as any good memoir can be engaging, but are unlikely to change other people's minds.
Yeah. I'm not reading these books so that I can test my faith or see if Dawkins can convince me to stop following Jesus. I'm just interested in atheist perspectives. I don't expect to change my mind by reading it any more than Dawkins would change his mind by reading C. S. Lewis.

[justkay]

This isn't really on topic, but "6 impossible things before breakfast" talks about the origins of belief and (really from an atheist standpoint) why 95% of the work believes in something. It's a really good book.

[bloodninja]

It's my opinion that people are born with, for lack of a better term, a "religious drive", and are attracted to religion just as they are to food or sex.

So you're saying I'm gay and a vegetarian?

[QMO]

I thought about that. I've never read any Russell...how readable is he? Does it get pretty deeply philosophical?...I read that "Why I am not a Christian" thing for a class in college. I found it to be much less logical than Russell intended it to be. Still, it is a reasonable compendium of arguments against God/Christianity, since they don't change all that much. Also, I felt he did a reasonable job pointing out some of the silliness of some of the sillier pro-God arguments.

[Guest]

I really liked the God Delusion because he talks about evolution of morals,
If discussion of the evolution of morals, or of theories regarding the presence of morality in the absence of God interests you, I recommend The Moral Animal by Robert Wright.

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996

It probably contributed to about a decade of my atheist period.

[QMO]

I've recently read both The God Delusion and God is Not Great. I thought both were pretty well written.

The God Delusion focuses more on reasons to be an atheist. God is Not Great focused on why religion is bad. Definitely more philosophical/logical arguments in TGD. I would recommend both. I intend to read Russell's book soon.You've read those books recently, so you have the raw information about the books, but I don't know you well enough to know if you have the necessary religious information to answer this.

I also seriously doubt whether I can ask the question in a way that won't make some people feel like I'm trying to start a flamewar, since the only way I can think to frame the question assumes a point of view that many people dismiss without even thinking about it.

Do these books use the normal anti-God/anti-religion arguments that are heavily dependent on: unsophisticated interpretations/descriptions/understandings of "religious experiences"? lumping all religious/religions, or even all christians/christian denominations, together (e.g. the assumption that if one is true/false, they all must be) comparisons to science dismissal of faith as unsupported desperation for some kind of life after death the (from my perspective) myth that religion evolved from superstitionetc. or do they have new ideas?

Maybe this question isn't even for you. You might not know if the ideas are new or not if you haven't yet read Russell.

[yanz]

When you said directed towards people who live in the US, does it take a political angle, like combatting the Religious Right or something? That would probably turn me off, since I don't identify with political Christianity.

Not really; it just addresses religion primarily from a US beliefs/actions/mindset perspective. I'd say that the reason one would describe it as directed at US citizens is because the US is a primary example of a Christian nation and US examples are used throughout the book.

Anyway, I've read LTACN and TGD and my thoughts are as follows...
1. LTACN was very short and concise so it got the point accross very well/quickly, as well as approached the issue from multiple perspectives. However, because it's a letter to a Christian nation, it focuses on arguing against Christianity, which, if you're not a Christian, doesn't do nearly as much for you.
2. TGD is much longer and more thorough in its examples/discussions of issues and, therefore, doesn't suffer from some of the limitations of #1 (but is also more generic).

Depending on your background/focus, you may prefer either one.

[Mayor Adam West]

Not really; it just addresses religion primarily from a US beliefs/actions/mindset perspective. I'd say that the reason one would describe it as directed at US citizens is because the US is a primary example of a Christian nation and US examples are used throughout the book.

Anyway, I've read LTACN and TGD and my thoughts are as follows...
1. LTACN was very short and concise so it got the point accross very well/quickly, as well as approached the issue from multiple perspectives. However, because it's a letter to a Christian nation, it focuses on arguing against Christianity, which, if you're not a Christian, doesn't do nearly as much for you.
2. TGD is much longer and more thorough in its examples/discussions of issues and, therefore, doesn't suffer from some of the limitations of #1 (but is also more generic).

Depending on your background/focus, you may prefer either one.

Gotcha. Thank you, that's very helpful. :tup:

[SamChevre]

I'm strongly Christian. The best presentation I've read of an atheist/agnostic worldview (in other words, I thought the description of Christianity was recognizable and of atheism was attractive) is Doug Muder's essays on Humanism. (Follow the link in my sig and look around.)

[Zee]

I may be reading between the lines too much, but I think it is interesting that you ask for input from both atheists and agnostics on the subject of atheist books. I get the impression then that you think atheists and agnostics have the same beliefs (hint: they don't). Anyway, I see that theists are answering the poll too, which I think makes sense if you want to also consider non-atheist opinions.

[Mayor Adam West]

I may be reading between the lines too much, but I think it is interesting that you ask for input from both atheists and agnostics on the subject of atheist books. I get the impression then that you think atheists and agnostics have the same beliefs (hint: they don't). Anyway, I see that theists are answering the poll too, which I think makes sense if you want to also consider non-atheist opinions.

Probably not reading between the lines too much. So you're saying, if I read Dawkins, I probably won't get a picture of how an agnostic reaches their beliefs, right? Are there any good agnostic books that you're aware of? Am I right that Dawkins' and Harris' books would be considered "atheist" books?

[joe robot]

If you want books treating atheism from a rigorous philosophical perspective, as opposed to more emotional and issues-based popularizations, check these out. Atheism: The Case Against God (http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=sr_1_1/102-6229099-5120901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192048339&sr=1-1) by Smith or Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430/ref=sr_1_18/102-6229099-5120901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192048246&sr=1-18) by Martin. Martin also has a Christianity specific book, The Case Against Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christianity-Michael-Martin/dp/1566390818/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6229099-5120901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192047372&sr=8-1)

The Smith book is probably the quickest read as it is not written in the academic philosophical style. They are both more in depth and well argued than Russel, IMO.

[The Waiting Hurts]

http://tinyurl.com/3x7xrc

The Christian Agnostic

[Mark Cavazos]

Do these books use the normal anti-God/anti-religion arguments that are heavily dependent on: unsophisticated interpretations/descriptions/understandings of "religious experiences"? lumping all religious/religions, or even all christians/christian denominations, together (e.g. the assumption that if one is true/false, they all must be) comparisons to science dismissal of faith as unsupported desperation for some kind of life after death the (from my perspective) myth that religion evolved from superstitionetc. or do they have new ideas?


I wonder about these, too.

Rational Atheism
An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens

By Michael Shermer

Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom:
(1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research;
(2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to
political preferences for some faiths over others; and
(3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad.

Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.

Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious*ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart*in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong*ful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

As King, in addition, noted: “The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”

Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.

[smaug]

I like this than any of Bertrand Russel, I have read

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1998

[SirVLCIV]

No, I'm not looking to start a thread for arguing. ;) A buddy and I are interested in reading a book giving the atheist perspectives and arguments. We were thinking through some of the well-known ones and came up with The God Delusion, Letter To A Christian Nation, God Is Not Great, and The End of Faith. For those of you who have read any/all of these -- which do you feel is the best representation of your thoughts, or is the most well-written book, etc. Basically, which would you recommend we read? Or is there another that you think is better?

Thanks for your help.

(and yes, I realize now after posting that I misspelled atheist, dangit)

Agnostic, but I have no interest in 'atheist' literature.

[SirVLCIV]

Probably not reading between the lines too much. So you're saying, if I read Dawkins, I probably won't get a picture of how an agnostic reaches their beliefs, right? Are there any good agnostic books that you're aware of? Am I right that Dawkins' and Harris' books would be considered "atheist" books?

Personally, I believe religion is fundamentally illogical, and thus, logical arguments against particular religions are inherently useless.

Note: Religion is illogical <> Religion is 'false' or 'wrong'.

The fact that I am unable to state that religion is 'false' or 'wrong' makes me doubt that outspoken atheists match my perceptions.


I believe in no particular religion at the moment (I was raised Baptist), but I am unable to unconditionally state that all religions are false.


I do believe there are biological mechanisms that cause a tendency for humans to be religious, and although, philosophically I am an agnostic, I sometimes catch myself irrationally 'praying' or 'cursing' to unknown deities in emotional outbursts in my mind. This is no different from the fact that, although I believe in determinism, philosophically, I sometimes catch myself 'believing' in fate and chance.

[JMO]

Personally, I believe religion is fundamentally illogical, and thus, logical arguments against particular religions are inherently useless.

Note: Religion is illogical <> Religion is 'false' or 'wrong'.

The fact that I am unable to state that religion is 'false' or 'wrong' makes me doubt that outspoken atheists match my perceptions.


I believe in no particular religion at the moment (I was raised Baptist), but I am unable to unconditionally state that all religions are false.


I do believe there are biological mechanisms that cause a tendency for humans to be religious, and although, philosophically I am an agnostic, I sometimes catch myself irrationally 'praying' or 'cursing' to unknown deities in emotional outbursts in my mind. This is no different from the fact that, although I believe in determinism, philosophically, I sometimes catch myself 'believing' in fate and chance.

:iatp:

It takes as big a "leap of faith" to be an atheist as it does to believe in God/religion.

Personally, I have a lot more respect for agnostics. Just sayin'

[Lucy]

:iatp:

It takes as big a "leap of faith" to be an atheist as it does to believe in God/religion.

Personally, I have a lot more respect for agnostics. Just sayin'People use the word "atheist" in different ways. Some just use it as a statement that they don't believe in God or gods, not that they are certain no such thing exists.

I don't think I've ever had a face-to-face discussion with anyone I knew to hold the strong atheist belief, that is, a solid belief that there is no god. I know a great many people who don't believe in god and who basically ignore the subject, but none of those people will stand up and say, "yes, I'm certain there is no God." Because as you say, that takes a leap of faith, and people who don't believe in god tend not to be inclined to make leaps of faith.

[JMO]

Well, Lucy, what exactly do you see as the difference (if any) between atheist and agnostic? What you just described sounds like what I mean when I say agnostic.

[llcooljabe]

My coworker defines his atheism as "there's no evidence for God, and I think it's impossible to 'prove', therefore there is no God"

[The Drunken Actuary]

No, I'm not looking to start a thread for arguing. ;) A buddy and I are interested in reading a book giving the atheist perspectives and arguments. We were thinking through some of the well-known ones and came up with The God Delusion, Letter To A Christian Nation, God Is Not Great, and The End of Faith. For those of you who have read any/all of these -- which do you feel is the best representation of your thoughts, or is the most well-written book, etc. Basically, which would you recommend we read? Or is there another that you think is better?

Thanks for your help.

(and yes, I realize now after posting that I misspelled atheist, dangit)
If it ain't on the RF, you don't need it. Just read the atheist thread.

[yanz]

My coworker defines his atheism as "there's no evidence for God, and I think it's impossible to 'prove', therefore there is no God"

I think regardless of the reasoning [or lack thereof] you use to get there, if the last step is "...therefore, there is no god" then you would be an atheist.

If, OTOH, the last step was "...therefore, I'm not sure" then you're an agnostic.

[The Drunken Actuary]

People use the word "atheist" in different ways. Some just use it as a statement that they don't believe in God or gods, not that they are certain no such thing exists.

I don't think I've ever had a face-to-face discussion with anyone I knew to hold the strong atheist belief, that is, a solid belief that there is no god. I know a great many people who don't believe in god and who basically ignore the subject, but none of those people will stand up and say, "yes, I'm certain there is no God." Because as you say, that takes a leap of faith, and people who don't believe in god tend not to be inclined to make leaps of faith.Then we need to meet. It's hardly a leap. More like a baby step, if that. Whatever it takes to be certain there are no goblins or tooth fairies or miniature pink unicorns too.

[The Drunken Actuary]

:iatp:

It takes as big a "leap of faith" to be an atheist as it does to believe in God/religion.
Why? Why should the default positin be 'there is a god'? Why is it a leap of faith not to believe in your bible? Is it a leap of faith for you not to believe in Greek Mythology?
Personally, I have a lot more respect for agnostics. Just sayin'I don't base my respect for a person on how closeley their views on God match my own.

[JMO]

My coworker defines his atheism as "there's no evidence for God, and I think it's impossible to 'prove', therefore there is no God"
Not bad, if you like logical non-sequiturs. ;)

[Mayor Adam West]

My coworker defines his atheism as "there's no evidence for God, and I think it's impossible to 'prove', therefore there is no God"

So you're saying your coworker isn't really a brilliant logician, eh? I doubt that proof would fly in Real Analysis. "I cannot prove it, therefore it is false." Put that as every answer on a test, and good chance you get an F.

[Westley]

Why? Why should the default positin be 'there is a god'?
It's not. That's why (per JMO's post) BOTH atheism and theism require a leap of faith. It's agnosticism that does not require a default starting position.

[JMO]

I don't base my respect for a person on how closeley their views on God match my own.
Neither do I, it's just the apparent lack of logic that troubles me.

The default position has to be "I'm not sure." Then the evidence can point to either
* yes, definitely I have reason to believe in god, or else
* it seems unlikely, but I'm still not absolutely sure.

Note the effective principle here:"Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Another reasonable conclusion could be an expansion of the "I'm not sure" position, which holds, "If there is a God, He doesn't seem to care much about what happens in the world/happens to me." (Been there, done that, actually.)

[JMO]

[thread drift alert]
By the way, I took the "baby" version of Physics in college. My husband used to tease me about that. Anyway, one of our first "lab" assignments was to come up with ways to prove that friction was NOT caused by tiny gremlins.

I couldn't come up with a proof, and eagerly awaited the answer to be pronounced.
Examples were things like - does friction still operate if there is no oxygen? This "proved" that it's not gremlins. I said, no, it only proves that these hypothetical gremlins can live without oxygen.
Similarly with the other so-called solutions.
Really, when you get down to it, it's Occam's Razor*, choose the simplest explanation. Adding gremlins would not be the simplest. And I claim this is not a scientific principle, rather it's an esthetic one.

*Named for William of Ockham. Not sure how the spelling got shifted, nor in which direction. Just sayin'
[/drift]

[Westley]

Is it a leap of faith for you not to believe in Greek Mythology?
And, this is "yes".

Maybe it's not a large leap and it's easy to do, but there is a leap of faith involved. Unless you can prove conclusively that there was never a demi-god named Hercules that fought a many-headed hydra, etc. Negatives are fairly tough to prove.

[Mayor Adam West]

[thread drift alert]
By the way, I took the "baby" version of Physics in college. My husband used to tease me about that. Anyway, one of our first "lab" assignments was to come up with ways to prove that friction was NOT caused by tiny gremlins.

I couldn't come up with a proof, and eagerly awaited the answer to be pronounced.
Examples were things like - does friction still operate if there is no oxygen? This "proved" that it's not gremlins. I said, no, it only proves that these hypothetical gremlins can live without oxygen.
Similarly with the other so-called solutions.
Really, when you get down to it, it's Occam's Razor*, choose the simplest explanation. Adding gremlins would not be the simplest. And I claim this is not a scientific principle, rather it's an esthetic one.

*Named for William of Ockham. Not sure how the spelling got shifted, nor in which direction. Just sayin'
[/drift]

Nice. That would have been an interesting Physics class, seems like. And I agree with your earlier post, that "absence of evidence <> evidence of absence." That principle can be applied both to God and to scientific concepts, like "The Missing Link." Just because no missing link has been discovered doesn't mean one isn't out there. Similarly, just because God doesn't always reach out and smack you on the butt doesn't mean he isn't out there.

[Lucy]

Well, Lucy, what exactly do you see as the difference (if any) between atheist and agnostic? What you just described sounds like what I mean when I say agnostic.
Oh, I probably agree with your definition. I just wanted to point out that most of the people who call themselves atheists are technically agnostics.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Neither do I, it's just the apparent lack of logic that troubles me.

The default position has to be "I'm not sure." Then the evidence can point to either
* yes, definitely I have reason to believe in god, or else
* it seems unlikely, but I'm still not absolutely sure.

Note the effective principle here:"Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Another reasonable conclusion could be an expansion of the "I'm not sure" position, which holds, "If there is a God, He doesn't seem to care much about what happens in the world/happens to me." (Been there, done that, actually.)What's wrong with
* I definitely have reson to belive there is not a god?

The default position should be not god because without someone introducing you to the concept of god you wouldn't be contemplating it at all.

[The Drunken Actuary]

And, this is "yes".

Maybe it's not a large leap and it's easy to do, but there is a leap of faith involved. Unless you can prove conclusively that there was never a demi-god named Hercules that fought a many-headed hydra, etc. Negatives are fairly tough to prove.Yeah, that's my point. The length of the leap is the same for the Christian God bible of Zeus. Very very small. Just like gremlins causing friction. Not much of a leap.

[JMO]

What's wrong with
* I definitely have reson to belive there is not a god?


What sort of evidence would allow you to say that?

The default position should be not god because without someone introducing you to the concept of god you wouldn't be contemplating it at all.

The default position should also be, for example, that fairness doesn't exist, for the same reason. (Oh well, maybe it doesn't exist.)

[Incredible Hulctuary]

This is no different from the fact that, although I believe in determinism, philosophically, I sometimes catch myself 'believing' in fate and chance.Well, if determinism rules human thought and behavior, your sometimish belief in chance would have been predetermined; you had no option to believe otherwise.

[Mayor Adam West]

The default position should be not god because without someone introducing you to the concept of god you wouldn't be contemplating it at all.

I know this is one of the main statements made by atheists...that the burden of proof is on showing there is a god, not on showing there is not. While I believe it's okay to think that, it's by no means a universally accepted axiom. You may think the burden of proof is on me; I can just as easily believe the burden of proof is on you. There is a philosophical case for both.