First, I am a little confused. You answered 'no' to my 'being' vs 'mindless process' then went on below to talk about a being vs a force. so maybe you can clear that up.

As far as no knowing whether or not the universe was created, well that depends on what level of "know" you are looking for. I think that there is plenty of information out there, definitely enough to make at least a tentative conclusion. It appears to me that a vast majority of the evidence that we do have leans towards created. Now whether or not you deem the amount of evidence to be a "sufficient" amount I guess is up to you.

As far as how this leads me to the "beyond doubt", first I would not say it so strongly, but I guess it comes out that way as I find pretty much no evidence at all to support the "not-being-not-created" hypothesis. So even if there is not a ton evidence, I don't the evidence that we do have to be a 50/50 shot, or anywhere near.

As the title of the thread states, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I see the claim of "everything is one happy accident" as possibly the most extraordinary claim every stated.

I disagree. There is tons of evidence that we can draw the conclusion of a "being creator" from. That's what we do everyday in science. We learn about the universe around us. Can we draw a definitive conclusion, no. But I don't understand what the atheist is waiting for. It seems to me that the best way to understand the cause is to understand the effect. Yet in the countless "what would turn you away from atheism" almost no one says anything about a scientific discovery but almost always resorts to a personal experience.

You might believe like Durka that the God question is underdetermined, that's fine but if you ask me you can at worst conclude which is more plausible. But again, that's up to you. Just don't pretend that your worldview is based on evidence or reason if you claim that the question is underdetermined. It is just as arbitrary as anyone else's then.

There is definitely more than one step involved. As I have stated throughout many different threads, much of what I believe is based on plausibility. Could the creator be a deistic one that simply struck the cosmic match and walked away, sure. But what I see around us is personal beings and it seems to me that it is more plausible to believe that if the creation is personal that the creator is as well. Again, many many steps involved but you get the gist.

Agreed.

I can agree with this for the purposes of this convo.

I would leave out the "expectations of worship" as that can mean many different things, other than that I think it's a fair sum up.

I think that what I have written above address everything here, so I will not repeat.

What I don't understand is how you can say "I see no way to resolve that question" considering that we are living in the effect. This is not something that is off in some distant area of space or resides in the distant past or something like that, but everything around us. I don't see how you cannot make a conclusion.

I really need to start the thread I have talked about for a while but I have just not had enough time to devout the time necessary to this sort of thread. I really don't see how "I don't know" is possible on a practical level. I don't understand how one can live their lives as "I don't know", I think that it is impossible on the whole. But I really need to take the time to write out the thread when I have a chance so I can articulate my position properly.

Might be worth a shot. Most people I know (outside of church) are completely uninterested in religion - they just don't think it's an important thing or answers any questions which need answering. When pressed they shrug and say "Who knows?" I don't see their behaviour as exceptional in any way. Why is it necessary to form a view on such questions in order to live our lives?

But by that logic, in your backwards world where people who argue against something means they're moving towards it, then the majority of believers who are arguing against atheism are already moving towards it. It may not appear like they are anywhere near atheism, but their heart is pushing them towards it. Why do I say this? Because I was once there myself. I'm here to help any believer who is on the path to truth of atheism.

But they do not act as if they do not know, they act as if they do know. They live their lives as if God does not exist. Gotta crash, I will try and expound a little more tomorrow.

That's a big call. Have you been following my friends?

Jib, thanks for the reply. I'm tied up with a project for the next couple of days, but will get back to this. In the meantime, a request. Could you provide a little more on the "vast majority of evidence" comment, and on the steps to a personal creator? No need to post all the evidence, but some idea of the type and sources would be helpful - scientific research or philosophical argument or whatever.

Also, my "No" answer wasn't intended to deny the issue of a mindless process vs a being, but to clarify that my question went beyond that - which I hope was clear by the end of my post. If it is still confusing, let me know and I will try to cover that as well.

Maybe the reason your posting in a predominantly non biblical believing forum is because something deep down inside is telling you your God and beliefs are wrong?

I kid.

Yep. for the most part atheists are agnostics and a fair chunk of moderate theists I know are agnostics ... essentially culturally driven to a weak form of Descartes.

I enjoyed your quote. In fact, you don't see many creationist arguing against athiests. So we are not moving to your direction, although of course some of us are. I get back to it sometimes, when I am around people who think that way. Getting into argument really does not help much, I did get into some with my friends, and it did not help at all. If there really is a higher power, who are we to think we have the right to force an idea onto another person? That would be playing God, and it's not right, even if you think you are doing it for God.

I am here because I was in your spot. I was against religion and debating against it. Now I am no longer satisfied with that old way. Since I was there, and I know the line of thought, I thought I could speak in a language more easily to take up by unbelievers. We know we speak different language. You definitely have come across believing people would cite a quote from the bible to rebuke your claim. He is trying to convince you using his truth, not your truth, and of course he fails. I hope what I write will be more easily taken up by those arguing against spirituality/religion. Deep inside, my faith is building, I certainly have none of that doubts that my God and my beliefs are wrong, so no. It would be a progression, not a regression, to have faith in a higher power. Religion is a means for spiritual evolution, it goes along with physical evolution. Spiritual is not to be confused with mental.

Wait, you were believed in Christianity, didn't find it appealing, started believing in Atheism, fell out of that, and you're now back to being religious again?

Are you still phasing?

Please explain to us how the average atheist "lives his life as if God does not exist", and how this differs from how the average theist lives his life.

Too easy.

Even when a theist doesn't live his life perfectly he can still be inspired and do something for or because of his belief in God.

An atheist will never claim he did anything in response to God but most theists will and even the "worst" theist will tell you he refrained from doing something or occasionally does something almost as an act of hope to stay in God's good graces.

ummm.... what? its kind of the whole point of this forum. I'm just a young man in his early 40s and I can assure you throughout the United States (and presumeably throughout the world) there are theists arguing against atheism.

No offense intended but your arguments lack logic. You got into an argument with some friends and it did not help... therefore arguments never help? People have admitted on this forum that reading through arguments has swayed their thinking one way or another. Just because your argument did not have your desired effect doesn't mean that arguments don't help. Also... perhaps you were on the wrong side of the argument? Perhaps your debating skills are lacking? Perhaps the debates were too brief?

What does the existence of a higher power have to do with people's rights to discuss and share opposing viewpoints? Who even says your forcing an idea. Many people are interested in exploring the viewpoints of other people because they're humble enough to realize that they can't know everything, can't have thought of everything, etc. We only enrich ourselves by entertaining and evaluating new ideas.

Whether there is a higher power or not has no bearing on whether or not we should debate ideas. I don't see how the first part of your sentence has any relation to the second part.

Um. No. Sharing ideas is not playing god.

was there a dramatic event or crisis that turned you around?

yes. that's a big difference. Theists will sometimes do things because of their belief in a god.

While most atheists will act largely the same way, they do so because they believe its the best way to act. Because they want to.

The net difference? Not a whole heck of a lot. Most atheists and theists are indistinguishable if you didn't know where they were hanging out on Sunday. Most aren't criminals. Most marry and raise children. Most care deeply about their friends and family. Most go to work.

What does it mean 'to live as though god does not exist'?

I'm answering though I wasn't asked. I personally imagine 99% of people 'live as though god does not exist.' If I believed that God existed and that there was any chance of an eternal life in hell... I would be in church 7 days a week, I would have memorized the Bible forwards and Backwards, I would be working in soup kitchens between Church and work... I'd be stoning naughty children if I believed that's what the Bible says.

At least in America, I believe the vast majority of people, Christian or otherwise, have premarital sex, covet like crazy, are rude to strangers, spend a lot of time judging others, don't know the Bible inside and out, etc.

I think if one truly believed in God and the prospect that when you die you're going to heaven or hell for eternity - it should be the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head and everyone you love. And the only way to prevent that gun going off is to do x, y and z.

Yeah, I do get the feeling that if I was a theist I would have to be what most people would call a zealot. I have no idea how a person can believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity that makes moral demands and ever go against those demands - obviously it can be done, but I've no idea how - can't imagine what these people are thinking as they sin.

But what I'm really asking is whether Jib or Splendour would say that, for example, a Hindu is 'living as though god does not exist'. And if they would say that, what about a Christian from a radically different tendency - is Pletho 'living as though god does not exist'?

The phrasing just seems totally inapt to me.

That was my question as well. I think it was just a meaningless Jibism, where even if he does show up to answer (doubtful), we won't be satisfied with his explanation.

I think everyone is living in spiritual blindness. Some compensate in various ways depending on how they use their tools and interpret the way they are to be used and some don't. Zeal could be an elementary stage of learning to compensate.

Spiritual blindness is a huge principle of the bible that seems to not get the full attention due it and even the Buddhists believe in spiritual blindness though they don't draw a full God conclusion. Spiritual blindness is an ancient concept that has been around a really long time. Funny how little modern people consider it.

First, the only reason to be a zealot if is you actually believed all of the ******** spewed by the fundies. I personally do not as their ability to interpret the bible is on par with their ability to interpret science.

Secondly, someone who is a Hindu would be living as if Hinduism is true. Living "As If" is probably the most meaningful concept when it comes to the real world.

It can mean a lot of things. A better question is "what does it mean 'to live as though you don't know' "

If God exists is there such a thing as a victimless crime?

When faced with moral situations how does one choosing as if "I don't know" differ from "God does not exist"?

Now I say that most atheists live as if God does not exist, but as you can all remember I have also said that it is possible for an atheist to live as if God does exist.

So someone can lack the believe in the proposition "God does exist" while still living their life as if said proposition was true.

The problem here is that your view assumes we know what God wants.
Say I am convinced by one of the arguments for Gods existence, and is now a deist.
When trying to move from deism to theism, I find that an enormous amount of conflicting views of God exists, and that they are all based on the same evidence, a holy book.
The only conclusion I can rationally arrive at, is that no one has any clue as to Gods character. This means I will no idea what God wants from me, if anything.
God could love evil doers, and reward every petty cruelty I commit, or maybe he just hates boot lickers, and punishes those who worship him.
There is no way we could possibly discover what God wants, so there is no way to distinguish living as if God exists, from living as if he does not.

That was probably a poor choice of words on my part - 'zealot' wasn't meant to imply everything that 'fundy' connotes. What I meant was more something like I couldn't see myself ever lying. Probably masturbation makes it clearest - I know that many Christians consider whacking it to be a sin. But unquestionably many of them also do it. If I were such a Christian, I don't think I ever would.

That really doesn't answer the question. Are they living as though god does not exist?

It doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing as 'living as though you don't know'. Or at least the phrase is vacuous since the only thing that people who 'live as though they don't know' reliably have in common is that they plead ignorance on the god question.
(shrug) You tell me. The answer will vary with the definitions of 'god' and 'crime' being applied.

I think maybe you've worded the question poorly? How does one choosing as if 'Lord Vishnu is the creator and destroyer of all existences' differ from 'Yahweh does not exist'?

I mean, my atheism is not a factor in my moral thinking. It seems to me as though you're trying to shoehorn it into being one.

How would one do that? Do you mean by being a good person?