[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not going to go through old threads and specifically point people out, but I can't remember too many atheists agreeing with theists that their view could be correct. I also don't think too many people would argue until they were blue in the face if they thought there was a chance they were wrong. I guess I am being overly general, but there are plenty of times that I have encountered (including on these boards) atheists who state positively that their is no god, higher power, or basis for any religion.

Am I totally off here, but isn't it the position of atheists that there is no "god", or higher power? That sounds pretty definitive.

I think it was mentioned earlier, atheism can differ in definition. To some atheism is simply the position of absence of belief in a god, to others it is that there is no god. To either, if evidence was provided then they'd likely change their minds.

And yeah sometimes people can get zealous and overstate their positions. And some may be strong atheists saying that there is no god, but I think it's important to find out why they believe that. Often the definition of god is important as well, is it the god of the bible, or some undefined god that has no direct influence on things?

Really? That is the default position? Why wouldn't it be "maybe there is, maybe there isn't"... I just don't get that perspective. It's just as scientifically valid to think that way.

Semantics.. when I say the default position is that there is no life on other planets, of course I mean that the possibility exists (I think it's highly probably actually). But until we find it we can't say there is, we say we haven't found it yet.

I also don't agree that the comparison in invalid. Sure, you can say that life already exists on one planet... but I can also say that reality exists on one plane, so therefore it can exist on others making for the possibilty of existing outside this reality (ie. an afterlife or before life - the foundation of many religions). I'm not confident enough to say 100% that such things exist, but my default position would be, "why not"!

Ah but I can prove other planets exist , you cannot yet demonstrate other planes. If there were other planes shown to exist I would say yes the comparison would be more valid.

And science's can also ask "why not?", without questions there would be no science. With science the questions need to be answered with evidence. And in the situation of a why not question that cannot be answered for sure, as evidence builds up on one side or another it can become more reasonable to take one side or another. One can ask "why not" for gravity to just stop working tomorrow, but given what we know it's unlikely, and not something one should be planning for.

The classic example is the hoof print in your yard.. it could be made by a unicorn, a zebra, or a horse. You can't prove any of them, but you can sure say something about the likelihood. And that gets back to atheists, someone like Dawkins believes he has enough evidence to be reasonably assured of his position. He's not just throwing a blind dart.

But do any of those specific examples mean anything about the underlying question? These were all ideas put forward by humans in the first place.

Sure they do, about one specific god anyway. If a god is defined as having specific properties and such then we can at least say something about it. If nothing else we could say that the god of people in group A who believe x y and z about god doesn't exist because x is shown to be wrong, y never happens and z always turns out as q. Of course that doesn't prove there is no god, just that one interpretation of god is incorrect.