Surely the onus of proof is on those who do believe in something. If I claim to have seen fairies in the bottom of my garden, I cannot expect anyone to believe me unless I produce some proof - undoctored photographs, videos, interviews, third party observers, etc. I see no evidence of any metaphysical being so I don't believe in one. There is no statistical range necessary - until some concrete evidence is produced.
I have never seen proof that is conclusive that there is a god.
I am 100% sure there is no god. Simple.
Nothing about religion makes any sense whatsoever. I am ashamed of the human race for still believing in feel good stories to explain certain happenings when science has done that and people refuse to acknowledge it.
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy".
-- Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Madalyn Murray O'Hair paid a heavy price for her thoughts and behaviors, didn't she Sandi. We have it easy, compared to her pioneering work.
What if god was a manager of a computer lab running a simulated universe that we exist in??
I wouldn't call that god. And I would say that that being and we are in the same universe.
I agree, that's just a manager in a lab; it's not a god. He would be subject to the same natural laws - for example, he wouldn't be causeless.
We'd still be left with the same problem of who, if anything, created him (and/or his universe). We'd still be stuck in the problem of infinite regress and we'd still be having the same conversation about the lack of god, God vs evolutionary forces, etc
I am not sure that a good has to actually be the apex of regress, what about polytheism?
I should clarify that I would agree the christian defined god would have to be the apex of regress. As to would most any monotheistic religion I have seen detailed, but I would say polytheism does not conform to this.
Difficult to imagine that a god who did not know what shape the earth is knew anything about computers.!
Aaron, your take on faith is in keeping with my constipation metaphor.
Faith is the abdication of critical thinking and reason. Regardless of how far-fetched and absurd the religious doctrine, the adherents fill up on shit and are unwilling to let it go. Faith is the sine qua non of all major religions. Take faith, add early indoctrination and an appeal to emotions and wullah-you have the formula to control how the masses think, their position on matters of importance and their attitudes towards others.
Faith is the oxygen of religion; it gives license to moral turpitude, discrimination and all of the ills produced by religion.
Not just sayin. Relayin.
If one is rational, he/she will accept proof that dislodges any opinion (belief) and accordingly change the opinion. Therefore there are no rational atheists. We are all agnostic waiting for the miracle.
However one who is not professing belief is an atheist in the eyes of a believer. I am willing to ignore the technical difference and carry the mantle of atheist and avoid explaining the difference between agnostic and atheist.
Sam Harris says that we should not accept the label because the meaning is that we are simply without belief in a supernatural being or power. We are without belief in one more god than a christian.
It is the obligation of those professing to prove their theory (theology) before asserting that it is true or expecting others to join them.