Why is the belief in a supreme deity different from the belief that there is no deity at all?

[tortoise1956]

Neither group can prove that they are right. Both groups base their beliefs on faith. They are two sides of the same coin.

I am interested in responses to this post, and would like to see rational, fact-based arguments demonstrating why they are right and the other side is wrong.

[Kurska]

1. Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

Should explain it well enough.

[humblebum]

10. The major flaw in the video is that the narrator's logic is based

upon the narrowly focused and limited epistemology of logical positivism, which by its very construct, eliminates anything related to the supernatural or metaphysical as a factor for consideration. Like trying to measure the depth of the ocean with a meat thermometer.

[skepticscott]

23. Still waiting for your 'other' way of knowing

that is more effective at what it purports to do than science. So far, all you can do is pretend that you've demonstrated it...

[humblebum]

47. This is your standard straw man response.

You know as well as I do that Logical Positivism ONLY assesses and is limited to the empirical. And, as for your constant denial of "other ways", you have been thoroughly schooled in those methods many times. Whether you agree or disagree with them is irrelevant, since the fact is they do exist and are used.
The very definition of Logical Positivism emphatically states that metaphysical or supernatural consideration is "nonsensical", therefore not even to be considered. The vid ONLY applies Logical Empiricism to the consideration of religious belief, which it clearly does not have the capability of doing, by its own definition.

[Kurska]

49. Empircal evidence is the foundation of science, if you don't like it don't dicuss science.

Why would you expect your ideas to be treated with any sort of scientific legitimacy if you're ignoring the backbone of all scientific knowledge?

[humblebum]

53. Yes, You are quite right.

"Empircal evidence is the foundation of science." I agree with that entirely and know that's the only way to conduct science. That doesn't affect my argument in the least.

[Kurska]

58. Well so long as you don't expect to be treated with any sort of scientific validity

I fail to see the problem with you thinking whatever it is you'd like to think.

[humblebum]

63. If I apply logical empiricism to any scientific endeavor, then

how is it not "to be treated with any sort of scientific validity" when the use of logical empiricism in the form of the Scientific Method guarantees validity? By your reasoning there has never been such a thing as a scientist who is a religious believer.

[skepticscott]

62. As expected, you simply repeat

that you've produced all of the evidence of what these "other ways of knowing" have discovered, when everyone here knows you never have and cannot.

You don't even understand that the entire notion of anything being "supernatural" is simply an unsupportable invention.

[humblebum]

64. And again your constant straw man companion. Just because

you don't recognize the acceptance of other methods and epistemologies, does not mean they do not exist. What it tells me is that you are only capable of very limited thought processes and feel quite superior in that capacity.

[sudopod]

66. Strawman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE&NR=1

[humblebum]

68. Actually that's exactly what it is. I should know because I've been

accused of it many times, and often deservedly so. Very common around here.

[sudopod]

69. Inconceivable! nt

[humblebum]

70. Conceivable! nt

[tortoise1956]

71. Interesting philosophy

However, the entire structure of your argument is built on the hypothesis that "metaphysical or supernatural consideration is nonsensical". by the rules of logical positivism this statement is meaningless, as it is not either analytically or empirically verifiable.

Once again, I don't know what the answer is. However, the denial of God is itself a belief system.

[humblebum]

74. My argument is not built on

"metaphysical or supernatural consideration is nonsensical." I was pointing out that this is part of the epistemology of Logical Empiricism. Any consideration of anything metaphysical, supernatural, intuitive, or a priori is considered meaningless. As defined by the Vienna Circle, "nonsensical" did not mean "nonsense or farcical" as is normally understood, but the term "non-sensical" was used as opposed to "sensical" - meaning that which is observed using the senses.

[skepticscott]

81. Is the denial of

Santa Claus or Odin or Baal a belief system too?

[Kurska]

48. So your argument is that his argument dismisses the existence of things you want to prove exist

so it is a bad argument?

Actually that would make it a rather good argument, unless you can provide evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Otherwise I don't see how an argument dismissing the supernatural is inherently flawed.

[humblebum]

51. Nope. My argument is

"The major flaw in the video is that the narrator's logic is based upon the narrowly focused and limited epistemology of logical positivism" -

Period. The existence of anything physical neither can prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural. Logical Positivism only cansiders that which is physical, therefore it cannot even draw any conclusion about the existence of something non-physical.

[tortoise1956]

72. It goes like this...

An argument dismissing the supernatural contains the same flaws as an argument for the existence of the supernatural. Neither can be proved or disproved, at least not currently. Anyone who can find one to be convincing while discounting the other is simply acting in accordance with his personal belief systems.
And AGAIN - I repeat that I am not taking one side or the other. I am honest enough to admit that I don't have the answer, as have some others in this thread.

[ZombieHorde]

84. What other type of logic do you think people should consider? nt

[kdmorris]

12. I have never seen that one before!

Thanks. It explains it perfectly (if you watch the whole thing)

[murray hill farm]

15. Thanks for that!

I have saved it!

[MineralMan]

18. Very good video. I doubt that many theists will listen to it

from beginning to end. It is too logical and accurate.

[chalky]

20. Excellent video. I love the clear-headed and concise stating of the case.

"Treat any group of people with such profound disrespect and it would be surprising not to see fervency from some of them."
I'm keeping that section of the video in mind when reading some of the other responses to this OP.

Oddly enough, I am that strange animal - a thiest who has no issue with athiests or agnostics.

[tortoise1956]

76. Good on you

We have quite a bit in common - I also have no problems with other schools of thought. I just pointed out the similarity between two polar opposite beliefs. Evidently it hits a nerve to demonstrate that atheists are taking the non-existence of a deity on faith. Maybe it's a bit scary for them...after all, I have often read posts from people who ridiculed Christians for their unprovable belief in God. Now those posters are faced with the same problem trying to prove their belief that God does not exist.

Trust me, I would have presented much the same arguments to anyone who tried to argue that there is a God. It appears I would have had more support in that endeavor, though...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

79. Keep pounding on that strawman

I know of very few (have never met any in real life and only a few on the intertubes) that have an active belief that there isn't a god. Instead, we simply lack a belief in any deity.

But go ahead and continue knocking around that strawman you've built out of your ignorance if it lets you feel superior to others.

[AlecBGreen]

82. There were two posts just yesterday saying THERE IS NO GOD

not sure if Im allowed to link to them (is that a call-out?) but they are right here in the RT. There are some atheists who believe THERE IS NO GOD. Shocking, I know.

***bonus*** there's another one in this thread. see if you can find it

[EvolveOrConvolve]

89. I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said

The OP was attempting to make a spurious equivocation between christians and atheists and I called him on it. His view of atheists is wildly inaccurate and he used that view to make the false equivocation. He built and destroyed a strawman with a mischaracterization of atheists, because I suspect it makes him feel superior to both christians and atheists.

[tortoise1956]

90. Once again, I used the definition of atheism found on the American Atheists website

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

http://atheists.org/atheism

Read the part about "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature". that is a pretty definite statement (pun not intended), and one that appears to be supported by a major organization. It even states that lack of belief in a deity implies that there is no deity.

Here's an idea. Tell me what your definition is, and how it differs from this one.

And stop reading your thoughts and biases into my post. I never said I was superior to anyone. I stated that I personally believe in a primal force of some kind, but not in the God figure seen in most religions. In other words, I have an unprovable belief that life is not random. The difference between us appears to be that I am willing to admit that it is my belief, not a statement of fact, and there is no evidence to support my beliefs.

[Silent3]

39. +1! An excellent summation...

...of the many explanations and refutations made necessary by common misunderstandings of, and hostility toward, atheism.

[Trajan]

2. Give us a break ....

Replace 'supreme deity' with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' and continue your useless exercize ....

Geeez ....

Anybody up for Unicorn Burgers ?

[aquart]

3. Anyone who kills a unicorn should rot in Hell.

[stopbush]

4. Or replace it with 'fairies' or 'werewolves' or 'shape shifters' or whatever.

Useless is right.

[MineralMan]

6. Unicorn burgers. Nothing to them. You eat one and you're

still just as hungry as you were before. Useless.

[RC]

13. Not useless. They taste good, especially the cheese burger version

[MineralMan]

19. You're just enjoying the taste of the cheese.

The unicorn meat has no flavor, since it is simply not there.

[Silent3]

24. But it does stay pink in the middle...

...no matter long you cook it. Invisible, but pink.

[MineralMan]

28. Like all supernatural phenomena, it is an illusion, created

by your mind. Pretty, but finally unsatisfying.

[laconicsax]

56. !

:spray:

[PassingFair]

34. Next you'll be telling me that the horn won't restore my virginity!

Respect my beliefs!

[MineralMan]

54. No, but I understand that drinking unicorn blood will keep you alive

until you can gather the horcruxes you need. - Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone

I read it, so it must be true. Millions of people know this, and millions of people can't be wrong.

[tortoise1956]

77. No argument, eh?

Come back when you are willing to actually support your belief, instead of depending on ridicule to cover the absence of your being able to present a logical answer to my post.

And, like so many others, you seem to have assumed I was arguing that God does really exist. There was nothing like that in my post. Maybe next time you should read a little more carefully.

[Trajan]

78. This is a laughable response

The argument is over ..... You are just another 'wonderful person' who has put forth some hackneyed and fallacious buffoonery that has been cast down many many times .... This is shifting the burden, and it is a well known ploy that is automatically relegated to the trash heap ....

I wont waste anymore time with this nonsense ... Get a fucking life ...

[tortoise1956]

83. Nice response

Touched a nerve, did I?

Well, I suppose I must bow to your superior debating skills and the insightful arguments you have made. I'll stumble - no, SHAMBLE back to my sorry hovel and live with the knowledge that Trajan's beliefs are SOOOOO much more better than mine!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

Of course, I didn't advocate for either side, so it's kinda funny watching you accuse me of assaulting your beliefs when all I did was ask what the difference is. Get a grip on yourself, take 10 Valium, and try to "cast down" my argument - if you can.

Of course, you can always continue the personal attacks and thus avoid actually defending your beliefs...

[MineralMan]

5. I don't know. I don't have a belief that there is no deity at all.

I simply do not believe that deities and other supernatural entities exist. Most of the atheists I know have a similar disbelief. It requires no energy or explanation. It's just a disbelief.

I feel the same way about leprechauns and unicorns. I simply don't believe they exist either. If you do, then that's OK with me.

[tortoise1956]

11. I respect your beliefs,

All I am saying is that neither side can prove their argument. That makes it a matter of faith. Linking to videos that support a belief, as a previous poster did, do not change the fact that it is still a faith-based belief.

BTW, thanks for your post. So far, it appears to be one of the few that actually presents a rational response.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. You require no faith to not believe something. n/t

[tortoise1956]

27. You believe that something doesn't exist

and you take that on faith, without being able to prove it.

[Humanist_Activist]

29. No I don't, I believe its unproven, hence I don't believe it exists...

don't claim to know what I believe or don't believe.

[MineralMan]

30. No, I do not. You are incorrect, and do not actually know what

I believe and do not believe. I need not, and cannot prove a negative. If you wish to propose something to me, the burden of proof is on you. I do not have a belief. I disbelieve in deities and other supernatural entities and phenomena. Since you cannot even manifest the existence of any of these things, you will fail at your proof. Thus, my disbelief will continue.

You are wasting your time in this foolishness. Your logic is flawed, your definitions are inaccurate, and your proofs do not exist. Believe whatever you can. That's my advice.

[tortoise1956]

36. Since you cannot demonsrate that there is no deity,

you also fail at your proof, because there is none. Neither side can prove they are right.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. You cannot prove the nonexistence of anything...

except for things that are logically impossible to exist, such as invisible pink unicorns or square circles, etc. Certain deities can fall into this trap as well, but not all.

[MineralMan]

44. It is not my responsibility to prove the non-existence of

deities. In fact, proving a negative is an impossibility. However, anyone who wishes may present their deity to me for examination. If I am satisfied that it is, indeed, a deity, I will change my opinion. I cannot present what does not exist. Apparently, believers cannot present what they believe exists. I believe that they have a belief. I do not share their belief. I do not believe. It is that simple.

[PassingFair]

38. Yes, yes, please tell us what we all profess!

Are you GETTING it yet?

If your deity stood in front of me
and danced a jig or struck my uncle
dead, I wouldn't "deny" that he/she/it
existed (although "worship" would probably
not follow).

Atheists can't "prove" anything, because
we make no claims!

Can you "prove" that fairies don't live
in your garden? Do you need to? Is anyone
asking you to?

[tortoise1956]

73. I used the definition from the American Atheists website...

What is Atheism?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

This is a belief system based on the postulate that there is nothing other than matter. As I have said ad nauseum, this postulate cannot be proved or disproved.

If this does not match your personal definition of atheism, please enlighten me. I'm not being snarky, I would really like to know.


For anyone who is interested, I have included a definition of a postulate:
Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument

[MineralMan]

21. I do not have a belief regarding deities.

I simply do not believe they exist. Non-belief is, by definition, not a belief.

You still fail to understand.

[skepticscott]

22. Nothing is ever proven to a certainty in rational, empirical inquiry

Does that mean we know nothing and can have absolutely no confidence that some things are far more or less likely to be true than others?

[qazplm]

32. well

we cant even agree on what qualifies as a God, how we'd test for one, how we'd falsify the existence of one, in short it is simply beyond science.

That doesn't mean we can't rationalize logically whether we believe one exists or not, but it does mean that at the end of the day we aren't really doing anything but taking a leap of faith if we decide affirmatively yes or no, moreso than in deciding what causes gravity or how light behaves, things we can test for and falsify even if we can't ever be 100 percent sure we have those things right.

[skepticscott]

61. If you agree on the nature or certain characteristics of

a particular 'god' (e.g. they hear prayers for healing and answer them), then you CAN test for their existence just like any other consequential phenomenon. And the more places you look for evidence of the god you've defined where it should exist, and fail to find it, the less likely it is that said god exists. And until that evidence becomes convincing, it is only belief, and not lack of it, that requires faith.

Are you certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist, despite massive evidence to the contrary? Once you understand that, you may start to have a grasp.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

7. The difference is

that with A-theism one can't justify their darkest evil intentions, which exist to one degree or another in all of us, by saying you are following the will of nothing at all.

[bowens43]

8. Huh? You're kidding right.

It's not up to non believers to prove anything. It's the believers making the silly claims about Omnipotent, invisible little old men sitting up in the clouds blessing some and smiting others....

Can you prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist? how about giant space-faring purple and blue zebras shooting Twinkies out of their asses, can you prove they don't exist? There are not two sides to this coin. This coin has one side.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Nice strawman you built there.

Too bad it doesn't resemble anything like reality. Atheism is the null state. We have nothing to prove. We just don't believe in any gods. There is no proof to support such a notion.

Why do so many believers seem intent on making atheism just like a religion?

[tortoise1956]

25. I personally lean toward an agnostic view

While I believe that there is a supreme force of some kind, I do not accept the living, breathing (I assume they breathe) deity that is a core belief of most religions. I can't prove that, and I am willing to admit it.

You have a belief system that holds that there is no supreme deity. You can't prove that, you accept it as true without any basis in fact. That makes you a believer. The difference between us, based on your post, is that you don't seem to be willing to accept that your beliefs may not be correct.

If I misrepresented your post, I apologize, and would appreciate it if you will explain where the misunderstanding lies.

Edited for crappy typing skills and a tired keyboard...

[tortoise1956]

41. Not a strawman, argument

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I am not attempting to refute your argument that atheism is right and there is no supreme deity, I am simply pointing that it is an unprovable belief, as is the belief in a supreme deity. That makes it a faith-based belief system.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. A few problems with that, first off, atheism is a lack of belief, not an "unprovable belief"...

at least for the majority of atheists(all the ones I know). That's what makes it a strawman argument, you staked out a position you claim ALL atheists have, when only a small minority actually have that position.

[Goblinmonger]

60. The strawman you are creating

is that atheists declare that there is no god. That is the position of basically no atheist. Most atheists just declare that they have no belief in gods.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Your problem is trying to determine whose right and who is wrong.

When that isn't even an argument, I'm an atheist because I'm agnostic about any supreme being. I don't know if one exists, so I don't have any belief about any such being's existence. I view them as no different than any other mythological or hypothetical being.

[tortoise1956]

33. Good response

And one that is well-reasoned. thank you.

I would like to say, though, that I don't care which side is right or wrong. This thread was simply an attempt to point out that both sides are faith-based, in that they are a "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (Definition #2 in the online dictionary I posted a link to in another post).

[Humanist_Activist]

35. The problem is that you aren't talking about "both sides" but the extremely rare...

type of atheist who has a positive belief about the non-existence of deities(call it the third type). They would require faith, but I certainly don't have faith.

[Angry Dragon]

17. I can prove there are forces or a force more powerful

than man in the universe.............

[TreasonousBastard]

26. There is none, although the usual suspects will confuse...

nonbelief in a god or gods with the belief that there are no gods.

Personally, I tend to hold nonbelief a bit higher than belief in any case, since it indicates a lack of bias. Belief implies a positive action, while nonbelief simply exists. Believers of anything must have come to that belief through some route, and that route may not be a particularly good one.

So, one must discount the blatherings of anyone convinced that there is not, and cannot be, a God as much as discounting those who are convinced they know the One True God.

[tortoise1956]

31. It's not a nonbelief...

It's a belief that there is no God. Unprovable, and therefore based on faith. See the link below:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Faith

I'm not saying that either side is correct. My point is that both sides are unprovable, and are therefore a matter of faith.

[PassingFair]

40. My point is that you don't have a point.

The prefix "A" means "without".

A person who is "amoral" is a person without morals,

NOT a person who "denies that there are morals".

Getting it yet?

[Trajan]

42. Yes ....

It is a matter of faith to disbelieve the existence of the FSM ....

It is because I hum and burn incense while I read the entrails of a recently disemboweled unicorn that I know the FSM doesnt exist ....

The complete lack of evidence to support the existence of the FSM has nothing to do with it ....

------------------------

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that you are the gazillionth person to try this method of equivocation to construct a strawman fallacy ....

Every one of them failed to prove a damned thing about atheism and faith ..... and yes: I am saying 'your side' is quite incorrect ....

[haele]

45. Anti-theism as opposed to Atheism.

Anti-theism is what you get when a believer feels they have been betrayed by their faith. It is an angry cry against the Ghodly Mommy or Daddy that apparently forsook them. There is still faith involved - and bargaining, fear, and rage.

That is not the same as Atheism.
Atheism is a null state, requiring repeatable evidence to justify a "belief" in something that would otherwise be dismissed or ignored as someone else's personal reality.

IMO, the problem between many of those that believe and those who have no evidence for belief is that those that believe will tend to feel attacked because the non-believers can't really respect that belief as any more important to them (the non-believer), than someone's personal philosophy or political leaning, and non-believers tend to feel attacked because far too many believers need to assert their belief onto every part of their environment to be able to justify it.

Just my opinion.

Haele

[tortoise1956]

87. Not really into the"Null State" argument..

but I definitely agree with your last paragraph. I believe it is an accurate description of the conflict between believers and unbelievers. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be resolved any time in the near future.

[Kurska]

59. You're confused.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Strong atheism is the belief there is no god.

[tortoise1956]

75. I read that online, and it seems logical on its face - however...

I was working from the definition on the American Atheists website, which does indeed deny the existence of any supernatural force of any kind.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

This definition, which claims to be based on a lack of belief, reaches the conclusion that there is no supernatural force of any kind. Once again, that can neither be proved or disproved, which means you have to take it on faith.

Perhaps the definition is incorrect? If you have a different definition, I would be interested in seeing it. Or alternatively, point out flaws in my logic - other than "unicorn meat tastes good" (I'm guessing it be like super-duper Kobe beef...)

And I still don't advocate that one side or the other is right. How many times do I have to repeat this?

[ZombieHorde]

46. If you believe my toaster does not control your every thought, then you understand.

If you believe your pants won't burst into a sensual herd of water buffaloes in the future, then you understand.

If you believe George W. Bush is not god, then you understand.

If you believe in free will, then you understand.

Are you honestly uncertain about all four of those items?

[sudopod]

67. If you believe your pants won't burst into a sensual herd of water buffaloes...

That's always super embarrassing.

[ZombieHorde]

80. Only if you hang out with prudes. nt

[tortoise1956]

88. Not certain about free will

Oh wait, that was during my first marriage...

Ok, I believe them all. Still doesn't change the fact that trying to argue there is a difference between lack of belief in the existence of a deity, and belief that no deity exists, is specious. In either case, you are still basing your your view on faith, with no tangible or empirical evidence either way.

And I wish you wouldn't put "sensual" and "water buffaloes" in the same sentence - I really didn't need THAT mental picture!

[MNBrewer]

50. Once the proposition is accepted that there can be such a thing as a deity

there is no logical reason to postulate that there is just one. Belief in one "supreme" deity is no different from belief in a pantheon.

No evidence can be offered to help us choose among the thousands of gods that have been postulated the ONE that actually exists while the others do not.

In the absence of any even mildly compelling reason to believe that this one lucky god exists, it's more reasonable to not believe that such things exist.

[tortoise1956]

85. Excellent post

And I agree with you that it is entirely reasonable to believe that there are no gods. As a matter of fact, I may use that same line of reasoning on some particularly irritable born-again Christians I work with. Thanks for the ammo!

The difference between your posts, and many of the others in this thread, is that you don't assert their non-existence as a verifiable fact or try to argue that a lack of belief is fundamentally different from disbelief.

Thank you for your rational and well-thought out reply to my question.

[jdadd]

52. Here's something from the LA Times........

Excellent article and argument--though the brain-washed will never buy into it. It's just too hard to think...to understand science when everything we don't know or understand can be attributed to the mysterious workings of god.






http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/opinion/la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718

[tortoise1956]

86. Thanks for the link

Good reading!

I may not agree with everything in the article, but I enjoyed following his argument and the evidence he presented. This is what I was hoping for when I started this thread.

Guess I might have been a little optimistic in that respect...

[MNBrewer]

55. I do not believe that gods exist, I also believe that gods do not exist.

I do not believe that astrology has any predictive power, I also believe that astrology has no predictive power.
I do not believe that crystals contain healing power, I also believe that crystals do not contain healing power.
I do not believe that the Loch Ness monster exists, I also believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist.

Belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is the very definition of FAITH. Belief in the NON-existence of something for which there is no evidence is reason, not faith.

Theism is not a falsifiable hypothesis, atheism is.

[saras]

57. It's not. Belief is a process, a different one than having an opinion

The simplest way to make the distinction is to ask what evidence would change the belief/opinion holder's mind. If they can articulate a chain of evidence, it's an opinion. With a belief, trust in the absolute truth of it and its imperviousness to evidence is a primary part of it. There's sort of an in-between for lifelong prejudices or habits, where someone has no reason to cling to a position except for never having had to think about it before. These may or may not be amenable to change when presented with new situations.

All the thoughts, feelings, opinions, and beliefs in this discussion exist in the same realm as unicorn meat. They don't exist in the realm of physical objects that science can address.

Using science to argue against spiritual experience is EXACTLY like using science to argue against poetry.

Religion is another matter. Religions are civil organizations that perform organized public behavior, and are hence subject to regulation for the public good.

[sudopod]

65. This is not a new question

Bertand Russell gave the canonical godless response back in 1952.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Also see: Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster.