Strong Atheism and Faith
Offline I don't have issues with weak atheism, but I do with strong atheism. For the purpose of this thread I am going to take a "agnostic/deistic" perspective on the creation of the universe. (I am well aware that my "deistic" conclusions can be substituted for the 'god of the gaps' argument). As a deist, I am not refering to an anthropomorphical biblical god, but a "transcendental entity/force " responsible for the creation of the cosmos.
My arguement is that strong atheism requires faith; a suspension of logic, reason, and empirics. How can a strong atheist boldy make the claim that there is not a "transcendental entity/force" responsible for the creation of the cosmos. As an agnostic, not all the evidence is in to disprove the existence of a transcendental entity.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline My strong atheism is not a bad thing nor do I percieve more active "fundamentalist" atheism to be bad at all, for this simple reason. Most people have not pulled the idea of god out of their ass, it was derived from something. You get your idea and concept of even the idea of a diety from religion. I can make no legimimate claim that no god exists at all 100%.
I am not saying that your strong atheism is wrong, but simply stating that it requires some sort of faith; suspension of logic. you are probably a good person and perhaps we could be friends.
I take offense that you state that I get my notion of 'god' from religion. I am as much against revealed as you and believe that religion is repsonsible for distracting humanity for understanding what 'god' is and what 'god' is not.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline Does it kind of depend on the idea of god? Notice how you say, "I am not refering to an anthropomorphical biblical god?" Does that mean that someone can use logic to say X idea of god can't exist because of argument A?
If someone is strong on all god ideas probably, but they might mean they are strong on X god idea(s).
Probably the most intelligent comment I have received. It does depend on your/our idea of 'god'.
You have given me food for thought. Thank you.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline Yet i still stand with my statement before, i have yet to see any evidence properly presented that ANY god diety exists, religous OR otherwise. So far all the evidence points towards a natural origin of this universe, questions regarding how matter came to be or energy etc, cannot be filled using well it must of been god or something like god. When all the answers so far have shown a natural process, without the need of god. As such my Strong atheism still does not require a suspension of logic, i do not rule out the possiblity, but that possiblity for a deity is so small it is nearly 0 percent. but not quite. Then again i hold the same for invisible pink unicorns, flying spagehitti monsters etc.
Offline Yet i still stand with my statement before, i have yet to see any evidence properly presented that ANY god diety exists, religous OR otherwise. So far all the evidence points towards a natural origin of this universe, questions regarding how matter came to be or energy etc, cannot be filled using well it must of been god or something like god. When all the answers so far have shown a natural process, without the need of god. As such my Strong atheism still does not require a suspension of logic, i do not rule out the possiblity, but that possiblity for a deity is so small it is nearly 0 percent. but not quite. Then again i hold the same for invisible pink unicorns, flying spagehitti monsters etc.
I appreciate your conviction of your strong atheism and your intelligent reply. I do question if you are a strong atheist, since you make your conclusion on our current answers. Do you have a complete disregard for future answers?
Lets clear something up. (By no means am I singling you out). Atheist and/or the RRS want to elevate 'god' to unicorns and flying spaghetti monstors. This is a contemtpuous elevation/de-elevation and ignites hostility due to ignorance.
I am on the same page as you concerning revealed religion and an athropomorphical, biblical god. It is equivalent to the fucking Easter Bunny hiding eggs.
While I appreciate atheism, my conception of 'god' (even if I disagree with my conception) deserves more respect than unicorns and Santa Clause committing adultery with the Tooth Fairy.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline I don't "believe" or "have faith" that there is no god. There are a lot of claims out there, made across many millenia, of various gods and supernatural entities. I simply don't find any of them credible or logical. If someone brought a claim to the table with some rational basis, I would be more than happy to consider it, but to date they have all been absurd, and some quite insane.
To say that atheism requires faith would mean that we give the claim creedence, that it has a strong case for it. It doesn't. To make claims that everyone sees it as such is solipsism of the worst kind.
Offline While I appreciate atheism, my conception of 'god' (even if I disagree with my conception) deserves more respect than unicorns and Santa Clause committing adultery with the Tooth Fairy.
The problem is, though, that to an atheist both are imaginary/not real. To us, there is no difference between a unicorn, Santa Clause, or a God (or atleast your God if the atheist is a weak atheist). Why would a belief in something that has just as much likely hood as a Unicorn deserve any more respect than anything else?
Offline Deviant wrote:While I appreciate atheism, my conception of 'god' (even if I disagree with my conception) deserves more respect than unicorns and Santa Clause committing adultery with the Tooth Fairy.
The problem is, though, that to an atheist both are imaginary/not real. To us, there is no difference between a unicorn, Santa Clause, or a God (or atleast your God if the atheist is a weak atheist). Why would a belief in something that has just as much likely hood as a Unicorn deserve any more respect than anything else?
The problem with that is that you place all non-real ideas on the same level, which is, I think, a very large mistake. Fact is, some irrational beliefs are better than others. It's about time we stopped lumping them all into one, all-encompassing category.
Offline To say that atheism requires faith would mean that we give the claim creedence, that it has a strong case for it. It doesn't. To make claims that everyone sees it as such is solipsism of the worst kind.
I said "strong" atheism has a faith. How can 'god' be falsified?
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline The problem with that is that you place all non-real ideas on the same level, which is, I think, a very large mistake. Fact is, some irrational beliefs are better than others. It's about time we stopped lumping them all into one, all-encompassing category.
Think about how one comes to believe in such things. You sort through the claims and use your imagination until you find one that you like, that you don't instinctually reject, and/or that you can imagine. You then try to fit facts around it to justify it, and if you can't find an irreconcilable contradiction with your current thinking, then you accept it as true. Do you really think reality works that way? If so, why aren't you a scientist?
Offline I said "strong" atheism has a faith. How can 'god' be falsified?
God can't be falsified, that's the whole point. Falsifiiability is required for a claim to have any validity.
Offline Why is this even important?
So what if there are people who are strong atheists, and so what if their position is not the most logically viable of all the atheist positions?
Seriously... so what?
First off, I'm not convinced there's anything to this argument. With regard to anything supernatural, there's very solid logic to "strong atheism." Supernatural, for reasons we've gone over and over and over and over and over, cannot exist. Etc...
But... even if this is somehow not logically sound, how does this do anything to the weak atheist's claim that the complete and total lack of evidence for a god points to its nonexistence?
Is god going to poof into existence because some people believed too actively that he doesn't exist?
Offline The problem is, though, that to an atheist both are imaginary/not real. To us, there is no difference between a unicorn, Santa Clause, or a God (or atleast your God if the atheist is a weak atheist). Why would a belief in something that has just as much likely hood as a Unicorn deserve any more respect than anything else?
Your ignorance is emerging. Atheists can be just as ignorant as theist. This is why I think it is better to judge a man on his character rather than his beliefs.
I am not saying you lack character, but you are ignorant. I make a challenge for atheist to support your claim that 'god' exist on the same plane as Mother Teresa fucking the shit out of the late Pope.
'god' to me (when I subscribe to 'god'
is transcendental and may not be able to be experience by our human senses. The creation of the universe is still not concrete. Even if it was, there are still metaphysical questions that science and logic may not be able to answer.
You are placing 'my god' on the same plane as unicorns and flying spageghti monster is a weak argument and an unoriginal. Are you simply subscribing to Dawkins and his arguments? If so, at least be original.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline Why is this even important?
So what if there are people who are strong atheists, and so what if their position is not the most logically viable of all the atheist positions?
So what if people are theist and their position is not the most logically viavle of all theist positions.
First off, I'm not convinced there's anything to this argument. With regard to anything supernatural, there's very solid logic to "strong atheism." Supernatural, for reasons we've gone over and over and over and over and over, cannot exist. Etc...But... even if this is somehow not logically sound, how does this do anything to the weak atheist's claim that the complete and total lack of evidence for a god points to its nonexistence?
My agrument is against "strong" atheism. I do not believe that it is logically sound and therefore requires FAITH. "weak" atheism (very closely associated to agnosticism) does not require faith.
Logic is absent in "strong" atheism. Humans live in an anthropocentric perspective, so refuting "supernaturalism" base upon anthropocentric logic requires FAITH.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline Does strong atheism require faith?
Well that depends what you mean by faith. If you utilize the everyday meaning of the word faith as in I have faith in my friends, or in science, or that the light bulb will come on when I press the switch then yes it does. Faith in this context really means a justified but not conclusively proven belief. Most of our beliefs about the world are of this nature and hence require this kind of faith. To see the truth of this try to logically prove that there is a car outside your window or try to logically prove any observation about the world. It can't be done. Not by pure logic. You can not categorically prove these things by logic. You can however justify them very well, from observation and past experience. This inductive reason is fine by me and I see it as vital part of forming rational beliefs about the world.
Does strong atheism require the other kind of faith? The blind faith of religion? No absolutely not. Strong atheism can be justified very well. If we look around the universe all the evidence from the whole of human experience would indicate that the universe is just not the kind of place where Gods or even god like entities exist. We can form very strong inductive arguments to justify the belief "God does not exist" hence strong atheism is a justified belief and thus it does not require faith in this sense. This sense being "believing something without justification".
A typical theist trick is to try and blur the two different meanings of the word faith in an attempt to drag us down to their level. They admit that their God belief requires the second type of faith, namely that they can't justify the belief in God but they still hold the belief despite of the complete lack of justification. They look at the atheist belief and switch meanings of the word faith to mean "believing something that can not be proved categorically but can still be justified" they then quite rightly point out that atheism requires this kind of faith. They then equate these two different meanings of the word faith in an attempt to drag strong atheism into the same intellectual cesspool in which they wallow.
Offline Does strong atheism require the other kind of faith? The blind faith of religion? No absolutely not. Strong atheism can be justified very well. If we look around the universe all the evidence from the whole of human experience would indicate that the universe is just not the kind of place where Gods or even god like entities exist. We can form very strong inductive arguments to justify the belief "God does not exist" hence strong atheism is a justified belief and thus it does not require faith in this sense. This sense being "believing something without
I appreciate your sound logical argument, but you are supporting "strong" atheism from an anthropocentric view. I agree with you, but "strong" atheism leaves out possibilities based upon anthropocentric logic.
Yes, "strong" atheism requires faith; logic beyond human senses.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline Does strong atheism require the other kind of faith? The blind faith of religion? No absolutely not. Strong atheism can be justified very well. If we look around the universe all the evidence from the whole of human experience would indicate that the universe is just not the kind of place where Gods or even god like entities exist. We can form very strong inductive arguments to justify the belief "God does not exist" hence strong atheism is a justified belief and thus it does not require faith in this sense. This sense being "believing something without
I appreciate your sound logical argument, but you are supporting "strong" atheism from an anthropocentric view. I agree with you, but "strong" atheism leaves out possibilities based upon anthropocentric logic.
Yes, "strong" atheism requires faith; logic beyond human senses.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline Does strong atheism require faith?
Well that depends what you mean by faith. If you utilize the everyday meaning of the word faith as in I have faith in my friends, or in science, or that the light bulb will come on when I press the switch then yes it does. Faith in this context really means a justified but not conclusively proven belief. Most of our beliefs about the world are of this nature and hence require this kind of faith. To see the truth of this try to logically prove that there is a car outside your window or try to logically prove any observation about the world. It can't be done. Not by pure logic. .
Your logic is anthropocentric. A" strong" atheist only lives in an anthropocentric world, so their conclusions are FAITH based.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline My internet was slow due to rain. I did not mean to double post.
Offline My internet was slow due to rain. I did not mean to double post.
Offline evil religion wrote:I appreciate your sound logical argument, but you are supporting "strong" atheism from an anthropocentric view. I agree with you, but "strong" atheism leaves out possibilities based upon anthropocentric logic. Yes, "strong" atheism requires faith; logic beyond human senses.Does strong atheism require the other kind of faith? The blind faith of religion? No absolutely not. Strong atheism can be justified very well. If we look around the universe all the evidence from the whole of human experience would indicate that the universe is just not the kind of place where Gods or even god like entities exist. We can form very strong inductive arguments to justify the belief "God does not exist" hence strong atheism is a justified belief and thus it does not require faith in this sense. This sense being "believing something without
But only "faith" in the same sense as any other belief we have about the external world. Every single beleif we have about what exists or does not external to our own selves and internal sense data requires this kind of "faith". You can not logically prove the existence or non existence of any of the objects around us or any or the rules that we say govern their behaviour. The belief "there is a tree infront of me" can not be logically proved. It requires "faith" that we are awake, that we are not a brain in a vat, that our sense are reporting things correctly, that we are not halucinating, that it is not a trick etc etc etc. There is always a degree of "faith" in this sense no matter how well justfied the belief actually is. But this use of the word "faith" renders it useless, it has a very different meaning to same word when used to describe and unjustfied belief.
Yes strong atheism requires faith in the rather trivial sense of teh word in the same way that most of our other beleifs about the world do, including the whole of science. So what? We should not really be using the word faith in these cases though, we should use the word faith to describe "bad" or "Unjustfied beliefs" - this use very much applied to god beliefs and definitly does not apply to strong atheism. Which I maintain is an entirely justfiable position - not categorically provable but then what fact about the external world is? (mathematical facts perhaps?)
Offline latincanuck wrote:Yet i still stand with my statement before, i have yet to see any evidence properly presented that ANY god diety exists, religous OR otherwise. So far all the evidence points towards a natural origin of this universe, questions regarding how matter came to be or energy etc, cannot be filled using well it must of been god or something like god. When all the answers so far have shown a natural process, without the need of god. As such my Strong atheism still does not require a suspension of logic, i do not rule out the possiblity, but that possiblity for a deity is so small it is nearly 0 percent. but not quite. Then again i hold the same for invisible pink unicorns, flying spagehitti monsters etc.I appreciate your conviction of your strong atheism and your intelligent reply. I do question if you are a strong atheist, since you make your conclusion on our current answers. Do you have a complete disregard for future answers?
Lets clear something up. (By no means am I singling you out). Atheist and/or the RRS want to elevate 'god' to unicorns and flying spaghetti monstors. This is a contemtpuous elevation/de-elevation and ignites hostility due to ignorance.
I am on the same page as you concerning revealed religion and an athropomorphical, biblical god. It is equivalent to the fucking Easter Bunny hiding eggs.
While I appreciate atheism, my conception of 'god' (even if I disagree with my conception) deserves more respect than unicorns and Santa Clause committing adultery with the Tooth Fairy.
It is not meant as a form of disrespect, but a statement of fact, your statement that you believe in a god that created everything, religious wise or not, without any form of evidence goes into the same tray as any other deity without the evidence that requires faith to prove. It is not disrespect, but if you want me to say yes there is a possiblity that your deity or idea of a deity may exists, it has to rest on more than the arguement of I don't understand how it all works therefore there is a god, that you used once already. If there is a logical conclusion to it, present it. You haven't done so. Second, your idea of a god deserves the same amount of respect of other gods, until otherwise proven or given the proper evidence of a possiblity. Some may view this as disrespect, i view it has an honest view of an opinion that has no show of validity.
It is better you learn that faults in your arguements than continue to argue with those faults. The call to respect your arguement only goes as far as the strength of your arguement/opinion/idea.
Offline LosingStreak06 wrote:That's what every theist says about their chosen deity. They all have the same level of rational basis - none. They all require the same sort of logic - circular. Some have simply been written about and taken seriously by those that are willing to accept them as true without any real basis.The problem with that is that you place all non-real ideas on the same level, which is, I think, a very large mistake. Fact is, some irrational beliefs are better than others. It's about time we stopped lumping them all into one, all-encompassing category.
If you think that only things which are true have any value, then yes, you would be correct. But I disagree with you. Some things (belief in deities can fall under this category) can have value regardless of their factuality.
Think about how one comes to believe in such things. You sort through the claims and use your imagination until you find one that you like, that you don't instinctually reject, and/or that you can imagine.
Actually, instead of sorting through preexisting claims, I was partial to making up my own claims. So you're wrong right off the bat.
You then try to fit facts around it to justify it, and if you can't find an irreconcilable contradiction with your current thinking, then you accept it as true.
"Facts are a trivial thing when it comes to my beliefs." - LosingStreak06
I typed it up that way so that it would be easier to simply copy and paste into one's signature, should one be inclined (by value of humor) to do so. 
Do you really think reality works that way? If so, why aren't you a scientist?
Actually, yes, I do think reality works that way. My reality, anyway. I'm a sort of pragmatist, you see. And I'm not a scientist because I am far too busy dabbling in drink, music, and fornication. Science, aside from it's practical applications, mostly bores me.
Offline The problem with that is that you place all non-real ideas on the same level, which is, I think, a very large mistake. Fact is, some irrational beliefs are better than others. It's about time we stopped lumping them all into one, all-encompassing category.
Oh I agree entirely. We should lump them into categories based on how obsurd they are.
Not that obsurd.
Pretty obsurd.
Hurts to read.
Laughable.
Only children believe it.
However, they're all the same thing. An illogical belief.
Offline I hate responding in bulk, or nit picking sentences, so I quoted one bit and will respond to the whole of the message.
CrimsonEdge wrote:You are placing 'my god' on the same plane as unicorns and flying spageghti monster is a weak argument and an unoriginal. Are you simply subscribing to Dawkins and his arguments? If so, at least be original.I've lumped all illogical thinking into the same category before I even know about Hawkins, and this was long before he appeared on South Park (I thought he was some made up character that they used to represent someone else to show how little I knew about the guy).
I'll use an analogy to help express my viewpoint. It's going to be typed as if the reader has no knowledge of the subject, just to make it easy for everyone to understand.
There are many types of video games, all of which can be classified THOUSANDS of different ways. Violent, fun, boring, friendly, educational, etc. They can also be classified in other ways, like Role Playing Game, First Person Shooter, Sports, Racing, etc.
I'll use RPG's as a specific example.
There are many kinds of RPG's. Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, Traditional RPG's, Turn based RPG's (think you move some characters on a screen and pass your turn... like Risk), Action RPG's, and some others.
Next, I'll go into MMORPG's (the first RPG I listed).
For MMO's (a shorter term coined for MMORPG's) there are many different kinds of games. You have your traditional MMO (Everquest), team based MMO (Dark Age of Camelot), FPSMMO (Planetside), PVPMMO (I can't list one off the top of my head), etc. There are a lot.
Next, I'll go into traditional MMO's.
There's Everquest, Everquest 2, WoW, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Asherons Call, Guild Wars (kinda), and some others.
As you can see, there are many different specific kinds of RPG's all with their own subsections with even smaller and smaller groupings. The thing is, they're all still video games. No matter how you try to slice it, they are still video games. Nothing you say or do is going to change the fact that Everquest and Counter-Strike are still video games.
It's no different than the people who say 300 isn't a comic but a graphic novel. It's no different than the people who say that it isn't just a guitar, it's a Les Paul (I'm a musician, by the way
). It's all the same.
I believe science calls something similar to this as Biological Classification. In the end, it all boils down to being called Life.
Offline Will someone please address my question? It wasn't sarcasm. What does this question have to do with anything? What impact does it have on the world? So what if there are atheists who don't hold the most logical possible position (if we concede that point!)?
So there are some atheists who have a belief that's not as founded on complete logic as weak atheists, whose position has never been dented, at least not that I've ever seen. Will god suddenly poof into existence because someone didn't disbelieve in him properly?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
Offline Will someone please address my question? It wasn't sarcasm. What does this question have to do with anything? What impact does it have on the world? So what if there are atheists who don't hold the most logical possible position (if we concede that point!)?
So there are some atheists who have a belief that's not as founded on complete logic as weak atheists, whose position has never been dented, at least not that I've ever seen. Will god suddenly poof into existence because someone didn't disbelieve in him properly?
There's no real point to a question like this. It's one of those kinds of debates that has no real meaning but both sides think there is.
Offline Will someone please address my question? It wasn't sarcasm. What does this question have to do with anything? What impact does it have on the world? So what if there are atheists who don't hold the most logical possible position (if we concede that point!)?
Well I think its important to be able to counter theist deception on this matter.
So there are some atheists who have a belief that's not as founded on complete logic as weak atheists, whose position has never been dented, at least not that I've ever seen. Will god suddenly poof into existence because someone didn't disbelieve in him properly?
No. But none the less its worthwhile understanding the issues at hand becasue theists will and indeed have in myexperiance twisted words and meaning to somehow equate the positions of strong atheism and theism. They are not equal. One is justfied belief one is pure faith.
Offline todangst wrote:On a priori or deductive grounds or on non cognitive grounds. Are you aware that we can rule out claims deductively? Deduction allows us to make universal categorical negative conclusions.
I have to look into this more, but I have issues with a priori knowledge Perhaps, this is a misunderstanding, but I am having difficulty in believing that you would subscribe to a priori knowledge.
Do you or is this a misunderstanding?
It's clearly a misundersanding on your part.
Look, it's this simple: do you think that the color 'invisible pink' can exist?
My guess is that you'll say "No, because the term is internally contradictory"
Now, you understand the grounds for Strong atheism: it is not an inductive claim, as you erroneous believe, it is a deductive one, it holds that we can rule out the existence of a 'god' because the term either 1) has no meaning or 2) is contradictory.
And this renders your claim that Strong atheism requires faith as false.
For the life of me, I can't see why everyone here is not simply repeating this point to you. Every post that provides any other answer is going off on a tangent.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Your definition of the word faith is not used in the right context.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Atheists lack faith. What atheists have are a belief.
Deviant This is entirely true, but
So far not all of the evidence is in to disprove the existence of an spaghetti monster
What is unknown at the present time, is unknown at the present time
To try and fit deities/spaghetti monsters, whatever into these unknown gaps, requires a less than rational leap of faith, and is quite counterproductive, if you believe the spaghetti monster answers the unknown question then you have no reason to investigate this unknown quantity
While leaving it as unknown, doesn't immediately answer the question,but it does invoke curiosity and a higher probability that this question will one day be answered
No, it does not.
On a priori or deductive grounds or on non cognitive grounds. Are you aware that we can rule out claims deductively? Deduction allows us to make universal categorical negative conclusions.
http://editthis.info/logic/Deductive_and_Inductive_Logic
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Why is this even important?
So what if there are people who are strong atheists, and so what if their position is not the most logically viable of all the atheist positions?
Seriously... so what?
First off, I'm not convinced there's anything to this argument. With regard to anything supernatural, there's very solid logic to "strong atheism." Supernatural, for reasons we've gone over and over and over and over and over, cannot exist. Etc...
But... even if this is somehow not logically sound, how does this do anything to the weak atheist's claim that the complete and total lack of evidence for a god points to its nonexistence?
Is god going to poof into existence because some people believed too actively that he doesn't exist?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Again, using the wrong definition of faith and belief to twist something to support a claim.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
When theists refer to faith, they refer to this definition of the word faith. This is the kind of faith that theists have. The other definition:
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
Is the faith that theists claim atheists have. The problem with this is that they combine the two definitions thinking they are the same word. Just like combining the two words bat and bat.
Atheists don't have faith that something isn't there as we (keyword here) believe that there is no God. We do not have faith that there isn't a God, we have a belief. This is tremendously different.
Simple.
A unicorn might or might not exist.
We haven't discovered one yet but we might find one yet.
We know what a unicorn is (a horse with a horn) so it's just a matter of finding the evidence.
Could we say the same thing about a higgue?
Not until we've established what a higgue is.
'God' on the other hand, might not have such a coherent definition.
If the word is meaningless then there can be no hope of existence.
Whether God is actually meaningless is a controversial topic, but you atleast agree that it could prove strong atheism?
My strong atheism is not a bad thing nor do I percieve more active "fundamentalist" atheism to be bad at all, for this simple reason. Most people have not pulled the idea of god out of their ass, it was derived from something. You get your idea and concept of even the idea of a diety from religion. I can make no legimimate claim that no god exists at all 100%. However, many of us can discredit the sources where we get our definition of god. So if we can go through and say in all honesty there is NO RELIGION OUT THERE that's even remotely true to reality, then we are merely left with the general idea of god.
This general diety, when accepting the religions currently representing it are false (they are), has not revealed itself to it's creation at all. It has nothing going for it to even suggest that it would exist. The only thing that a god has going for it as far as proof is unexplained phenomena, but there have been many instances where previously unexplained things that seemed supernatural in nature were proven to be completely natural.
So when you take these steps...is there ANY GOOD REASON to believe that a good exists?
The more you know about the world around you, the less you have to make up.
Does it kind of depend on the idea of god? Notice how you say, "I am not refering to an anthropomorphical biblical god?" Does that mean that someone can use logic to say X idea of god can't exist because of argument A?
If someone is strong on all god ideas probably, but they might mean they are strong on X god idea(s).
I see , I shall think about this thank's CrimsonEdge
I use faith in the sense of suspension of logic: it is not misused.
I can make a deist claim in 'god' based on a rational belief just as a strong atheist can make a claim in the non-existence of god on rational belief.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
I have to look into this more, but I have issues with a priori knowledge Perhaps, this is a misunderstanding, but I am having difficulty in believing that you would subscribe to a priori knowledge.
Do you or is this a misunderstanding?
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.