Atheists are having it too easy.

[A Voice]

So the onus or evidence to give a notion any credence is reduced if the target of that notion is in the correct temporal zone? Someone can make something up and need evidence, but someone else can make something else up which refers to the beginning of the universe and some how it obtains more credence almost by default?

I am either wholly misunderstanding you, or I just . . .

Stop right there. You are not (fully) understanding me. I simply said, of the comparison between claims about God and unicorns etc., that nobody attributes originating powers to unicorns etc. This is not to say claims about the existence of God are necessarily true. But it goes some way to explaining the potency of the debate.

[A Voice]

There is no requirement for the universe to be satisfactory...unfortunately!

True. But we pesky humans . . . !

[A Voice]

There is no obligation on a non-believer to come up with anything but an honest "don't know". You're the guys with the arrogance to think you know the answers - we are more humble

You're making an assumption that I believe in God?

[Cato]

You're making an assumption that I believe in God?

...well if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

[Toland]

Those who don't believe in God still need to account for what exists.

Only if those who believe in God need to account for how come it is that God exists.

[Foghorn]

They don't have to argue they were working for the greater good. They were doing it out of their christian principles.

Do you really believe that..............or is that just what you want everyone else to believe?

[fionnmccool]

One difference beween God and unicorns/the Loch Ness Monster is that claims about God invoke discussion of beginnings, pre-bang stuff, prime movers etc. No-one attributes any of that to unics/LM monst. Those who don't believe in God still need to account for what exists.

Given the observable facts its much simpler to say the universe didn't "come" from anywhere and that it always existed. The concept of a ''God'' which always existed is unnecessary as a logical solution. There is a fallacy here that believers often ridicule the notion that the universe ''always existed'' yet seem quite happy with a being which ''always existed.'' There are no more answers as to why we are here in a being which always existed than in a universe which always existed as since whats done is done this hypothetical being would not have been in a position to uncause itself. Consciousness is not a requirement for reality to exist. In fact putting ''God'' in as a solution, inventing an imaginary unnecessary extra term in the equation is choosing the most complex solution possible while choosing to ignore the simple solution. The existence of God is just speculation whereas the existence of the universe is an observable fact. ''God'' as a concept is unnecessary for an explanation to how the universe works.

[Gadjodilo]

Of course it is because atheism is not a thing. It is merely a word assigned to someone who is not a theist. How can it therefore have anything to offer or say on anything?

What you should be doing therefore is not asking what “atheism” has to say about abortion or homosexuality etc. But what a person “who is an atheist” is saying about it and what his basis for doing so is.

For example I myself am pro-choice in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. Christopher Hitchens is not, yet he is also an "atheist". I am, however, so far unaware as to what his reasoning on the subject is.

So your error lies in asking what a person believes solely based on what he is NOT. Find out what the person in fact IS, and go from there.

Yeah, I think this point was well and truly thrashed out several hundred posts ago. I'm not sure if it ended up in universal agreement but perhaps we understand each other's positions a little better now.

[Toland]

Do you really believe that..............or is that just what you want everyone else to believe?

I generally would like to get people to agree with me. I don't mind if they don't, as that often produces a good argument, but the purpose of the argument is generally to bring our points of view closer together.

In short, no, I'm not dishonest. Are you?


Edit: I'm joking ... and refuse to use smilies, except when absolutely necessary!

[A Voice]

...well if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

You're another busy little assumer.