A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

This is why I keep asking what you understand by 'God'.

Oh. Was that the "question" to which you referred?

Answer: I'm a monotheist and a Christian. I mean the singular, Supreme Being, Creator and First Cause of the existence of all things. I understand God to be a "person," with specific will and intentions, and a relational entity, one whose will includes intention to reveal Himself to us.

Is that enough detail to satisfy your intention in the question? If not, maybe more below will do.

That there is more than one ideological view indicates that there is no general agreement, but you are free to assert your own view.

Well, yes: on many question s there are many views. But that doesn't tell us there are many good views. One thing we know for sure is from the Law of Non-Contradiction: equal and opposite views cannot be simultaneously true.

So, for example, there is absolutely no way for any more than one of the following views to be true:

1. There is no God.

2. There is One God.

3. There are two, or more, or many gods.

You see, not all "views" are equal. The "view" that 2+2=7 is inferior to the view that 2+2=4. And the view that God does not exist is inferior to the view that He does, if He does. The view that He exists as an impersonal force is inferior to the view that God is personal, if God has personal characteristics. And so on.

Here's a further thought: two out of three views just plain have to be wrong. That's true no matter which one picks. And that should assure you of this: that whatever God is, most of the world is actually wrong about it.

I don't say so: the basic laws of logic say it, particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction. And I didn't make them up.

So we can't just say, "Well, your view of God can be true for you, and mine could be true for me..." We could only say that if view 1 were true (meaning there was actually no real God) and we would be using the word "true" not to mean "real" or "actual," but to mean something like "emotionally pleasing but not real," or even "delusional."

So is your belief that God exists and his nature is derived from empirical observation(s), and has the same degree of uncertainty as all empirical evidence? Can you describe these observations?

I find the Design Argument very intuitively compelling and quite rational to suppose. I'm impressed by the arguments for the necessity of God, such as the Kalaam. I find the critiques of such arguments generally to be premised on a straw-man reduction of those views: in their full-blooded forms, they're very empirically good. The argument from the Existence of Evil is a real clincher, I think: absent God, there is no reality to the term "evil" -- or, for that matter, to the term "good." That's a very powerful point to me. And I've said this repeatedly on this strand.

But that's not the end of it. For me, God is not an abstract proposition, something I've "mentally proved" but not experienced. As a Christian, I have an ongoing relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. For years now, I have walked (somewhat imperfectly, if I'm honest) not just in the light of His existence, but also in the warmth of His goodness to me. We converse by meditation in the Scriptures and in prayer daily. And I have felt myself immeasurably enriched by the relationship.

I've seen over and over again this happen too: that however bad a person may be, he/she is always a better person when he/she knows God. And I'd say that however inadequate as a person I myself may be, I'd be a far worse person than I am without God. Coming into a personal relationship with God is just very, very morally good for people.

I have actually never seen a person come to know God personally and then become worse. Never. On the other hand, I've seen good people who didn't know God, and bad people who didn't know God. And I've seen some bad people who claim to know God, but don't act like they do (and I doubt their claim, and think so should everyone). For the most part, all of these seem to stay as they are: the good ones stay "nice," the bad ones tend to stay bad, and it makes little difference whether they profess to know God or not. But I've seen a lot of bad people become good by coming to know God. All that's also very confirming.

I suppose, in fairness, I should add that I've never once seen a bad person become good by converting to Atheism. That is also interesting.

So my empirical proof is not just technical, but personal and experiential as well.

But the moral clarity and purity of Jesus Christ is by far the greatest evidence I have seen of the truthfulness of God. I think that if one considers Jesus Christ and is not impressed, then there simply is no really compelling way to convince someone of God's existence and goodness. And in that case, they'll just decide whatever they wish.

My goal in discussing these things is merely to point people to that choice: not to make it for them, or even to convince them of empirical facts and hope they are convinced. It's dealing with Jesus Christ that makes a person a child of God. And if someone decides not to do that, I can only accept that judgment and move on, no matter how much I might wish them to do otherwise. For there is no other "door" to God but Christ. And if a person won't walk through that door, then he/she will have to find whatever other place to inhabit they wish.

But sadly, I am quite sure that it will not be with God, if that is their choice. So meanwhile, I will do my best to convince them to think again. In good conscience, I can hardly do otherwise, as I think you'll realize.

And is that the case with your belief in God? Is it a form of Pascal's Wager?

No. I do think Pascal's Wager is sound...the mathematical probability it entails is pretty easy to confirm...but I've always felt that mere prudence or self-interest is an inadequate reason to come to God: and that's all the Wager really provides. It's not a bad reason, per se, but I find it's...inadequate...it's not, perhaps, the best motivation.

One comes to God because He is love. So one truly becomes aware He exists and one wants to know Him...and really, for any other reason seems to me to be second-rate.

Me: It isn't supposed to be a trick question. Some might answer that they are convinced that scripture is reliable, using the sort of arguments we might use if we are making a historical claim. Others might say it is derived from one of the classical proofs of God. Others might be convinced by intelligent design. Or from some personal revelation. And an atheist might deny that any of these reasons are sufficient and therefore we should be an atheist by default, or an agnostic. And each might adopt their position but with varying degrees of certainty. And so on.

Yes: or all of the above. And a collocation of reasons that come from the convergence of many different angles and concerns is far better and more complete than any single, one-track reason. So it's not an either-or. There are a bunch of angles from which one can answer the question.

It is the same old question. What is the reason you believe in God? (assuming you do).

Oh. Well, I think I've said above now, haven't I?

[Londoner]

Answer: I'm a monotheist and a Christian. I mean the singular, Supreme Being, Creator and First Cause of the existence of all things. I understand God to be a "person," with specific will and intentions, and a relational entity, one whose will includes intention to reveal Himself to us.

Is that enough detail to satisfy your intention in the question? If not, maybe more below will do.

Yes, it satisfies my intention in asking.

So, for example, there is absolutely no way for any more than one of the following views to be true:

1. There is no God.

2. There is One God.

3. There are two, or more, or many gods.

You see, not all "views" are equal. The "view" that 2+2=7 is inferior to the view that 2+2=4. And the view that God does not exist is inferior to the view that He does, if He does. The view that He exists as an impersonal force is inferior to the view that God is personal, if God has personal characteristics. And so on.

Here's a further thought: two out of three views just plain have to be wrong. That's true no matter which one picks. And that should assure you of this: that whatever God is, most of the world is actually wrong about it.

I don't say so: the basic laws of logic say it, particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction. And I didn't make them up.

Whether those views are contradictory would depend on what is meant by them. When they refer to God, this tends to be tricky because they use words that apply to the normal world of finite things. For example, if we say 'there is God', meaning 'God exists', we do not usually mean that he exists in the same way that material objects exist. For example, if (as you say) God is the cause of the existence of all things, then he cannot himself be one of those things. So it would be quite possible to say God exists, and God doesn't exist, without contradiction, because we have no understanding of what 'exist' would mean when talking about God.

I'm not really questioning your particular beliefs here, I am just doubtful if any description of belief when it involves something like God can be made to fit with our ideas of logic, or even normal language. But this is a side issue.

I find the Design Argument very intuitively compelling and quite rational to suppose. I'm impressed by the arguments for the necessity of God, such as the Kalaam. I find the critiques of such arguments generally to be premised on a straw-man reduction of those views: in their full-blooded forms, they're very empirically good. The argument from the Existence of Evil is a real clincher, I think: absent God, there is no reality to the term "evil" -- or, for that matter, to the term "good." That's a very powerful point to me. And I've said this repeatedly on this strand.

But that's not the end of it. For me, God is not an abstract proposition, something I've "mentally proved" but not experienced. As a Christian, I have an ongoing relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. For years now, I have walked (somewhat imperfectly, if I'm honest) not just in the light of His existence, but also in the warmth of His goodness to me. We converse by meditation in the Scriptures and in prayer daily. And I have felt myself immeasurably enriched by the relationship...

But sadly, I am quite sure that it will not be with God, if that is their choice. So meanwhile, I will do my best to convince them to think again. In good conscience, I can hardly do otherwise, as I think you'll realize.

Again, that is a clear answer. Or rather, it is a sincere answer. Why it is not a clear answer is something you explain yourself:

Yes: or all of the above. And a collocation of reasons that come from the convergence of many different angles and concerns is far better and more complete than any single, one-track reason. So it's not an either-or. There are a bunch of angles from which one can answer the question.

I would only add that we are not entirely comfortable with this sort of answer. Particularly in the modern world, we like maths, or science, where answers are confined to a single track. But in my opinion when we are discussing subjects like religion, or ethics, those sorts of answers are just not available. And if theists are pressured into pretending that they are, they end up misrepresenting the nature of their own beliefs and getting into problems.

[Harbal]

I may take a drug and think I can fly by jumping off my roof...

Is this a genuine possibility or are you just raising false hopes?

I'm good to go

Then do it man, just do it.

[Immanuel Can]

[Yes, it satisfies my intention in asking.

Oh, good.

Do you have a view yourself?

Whether those views are contradictory would depend on what is meant by them.

That sounds like Bill Clinton's line about, "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."

It doesn't seem obscure to me at all. "Exist" means, "is real," "is actual." Another wry definition is that "reality is what pushes back against our wishes." That works in some ways too.

When they refer to God, this tends to be tricky because they use words that apply to the normal world of finite things. For example, if we say 'there is God', meaning 'God exists', we do not usually mean that he exists in the same way that material objects exist. For example, if (as you say) God is the cause of the existence of all things, then he cannot himself be one of those things. So it would be quite possible to say God exists, and God doesn't exist, without contradiction, because we have no understanding of what 'exist' would mean when talking about God.

Well, "things" exist contingently. But concepts and God exist "necessarily." In the case of concepts, they exist as they are because definitionally, that's what they are. So a "2" exists as a "2" simply because that's what "2" means. But a "2" is merely a concept -- a sort of numerical adjectival ascription, not an independently existing reality.

God would be different, yes. But not wildly so, in some ways. To say "God exists" isn't any weirder than to say "you exist," if what we understand by "exist" means simply to be real. On the other hand, "you" is both a contingent entity and a created being; but God would be uncreated, eternal, and necessary -- in the sense that His existence would not depend on the prior existence of anything.

To say, "God exists," with any chance of speaking of a reality, we would have to mean "exists outside of the imagination" or of people's mere opinions about Him.

I'm not really questioning your particular beliefs here, I am just doubtful if any description of belief when it involves something like God can be made to fit with our ideas of logic, or even normal language. But this is a side issue.

Yes, I suppose so.

Again, that is a clear answer. Or rather, it is a sincere answer. Why it is not a clear answer is something you explain yourself:

Yes: or all of the above. And a collocation of reasons that come from the convergence of many different angles and concerns is far better and more complete than any single, one-track reason. So it's not an either-or. There are a bunch of angles from which one can answer the question.

I would only add that we are not entirely comfortable with this sort of answer. Particularly in the modern world, we like maths, or science, where answers are confined to a single track. But in my opinion when we are discussing subjects like religion, or ethics, those sorts of answers are just not available. And if theists are pressured into pretending that they are, they end up misrepresenting the nature of their own beliefs and getting into problems.

I don't think it's all that hard to imagine similar scenarios. For example, I know my parents exist for multiple reasons, not all of which are equally "scientific" in nature. I know they exist because children don't exist without parents (rational, biological answer). I know because they send me Christmas packages (deductive or consequential). I know because I talk to them on the phone (experiential). I know because my siblings tell me they still exist (reputation, communication). Some of these ways are more rigorous than others, I admit: but add them together, and they constitute a very powerful case to say that my parents exist.

Not a 100% case, maybe. I could be the world's first genuine case of non-biogenic birth. The Christmas packages could come from somebody who is pitying me for being parentless, and fooling me. Phone conversations can also be faked, and my siblings could be lying...but all this is so unlikely, especially when you take it all together, that I continue to believe in the existence of my parents....

That looks to me like the normal way we do business when we decide something "exists." Its always multi-channel, different episteme kind of stuff, combining to sum up to a significant case.

Why should establishment of belief in God be confined to but one channel (such as the "scientific"), when it's only one of the many relevant sources of data? We don't do that in any other area of life: so why would we think we should to it in regard to God?

[seeds]

_______

I.C., when it comes to the existence of God, you already know that I’m on your side. However, I need to address your following comments in order to, again, point out why you’re having such a hard time with the atheists:

...the moral clarity and purity of Jesus Christ is by far the greatest evidence I have seen of the truthfulness of God. I think that if one considers Jesus Christ and is not impressed, then there simply is no really compelling way to convince someone of God's existence and goodness. And in that case, they'll just decide whatever they wish.

My goal in discussing these things is merely to point people to that choice: not to make it for them, or even to convince them of empirical facts and hope they are convinced. It's dealing with Jesus Christ that makes a person a child of God...

No. Being born a human makes you a child of God.

Furthermore, are you seriously operating under the assumption that these little Hindu kids...



...are not the children of God, simply because they were not indoctrinated into the teachings of Christianity?

...For there is no other "door" to God but Christ. And if a person won't walk through that door, then he/she will have to find whatever other place to inhabit they wish.

But sadly, I am quite sure that it will not be with God...

So, what exactly are you suggesting happens to this little Buddhist child...



...who - through God’s own system of creation itself - was born into the arms of parents in Tibet who then indoctrinated him into Buddhism?

Do you actually think that God would be less accepting of his beautiful little spirit than that of a child born into the arms of Christian parents in the Bible Belt of America?

To be succinct with my question – should the unthinkable had occurred in which all of the children in the images above had died right after those photos were taken, what do you think happened with their innocent little souls...

(which, btw, could just as easily have been you under the aforementioned randomness of God’s own system of creation)

...if indeed they had no knowledge of the one and only “door” that leads to God?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

_______

Furthermore, are you seriously operating under the assumption that these little Hindu kids...

...are not the children of God, simply because they were not indoctrinated into the teachings of Christianity?

In the sense of being created by Him, yes they are "children of God." So are we all. In one sense, every creature is. But it's not the only sense of the expression.

Because firstly, we don't all know -- or even want to know -- that we are. Just ask the Atheists -- they'll happily claim there isn't even a God to whom we could relate. In what sense beyond the superficial, then, could we speak of them being His "children"? That is, unless we were prepared to see every Atheist's declaration shut down, and their wills overridden by force of the Divine will, and all their choices taken away from them...

If God did such things, in what sense could we call Him "good"?

No, to be true "children of God," we need to have a real relationship with God. It's not automatic: it's chosen. Now, I can't speak for children I've never met...or adults either. But I can tell you this much: there IS a God we all need to get to know. And He, from His side, has done and is doing everything that can be done, short of forcing us against our wills into a 'relationship' with Him.

But that's the point: a forced relationship is not a relationship at all. We do have names for relationships constituted on the basis of compulsion...but to my knowledge, none of them is complimentary. I think you know what I mean. Is that the God you have in mind? (I doubt it: I don't sense you're a bad person. You seem kind and well-intentioned.)

So you see, it is not just that He chooses us; He gives us the freedom and opportunity to choose Him. And it's not on us to know all the stories of others; God may deal with them in many gracious ways...ways we do not presently know or understand. That is their story, not ours. What we know is that He is loving; and so I trust He will do what is right in all cases.

However, it's on us to attend to what WE know, not to what we merely imagine others as experiencing. And it's on us to know our own stories, and do from our side all that He has asked us to do to make the right choice clear to everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed.

Now, you know about God, seeds. So I would say this: leave the distant and unknown in His hands, and ask yourself about yourself.

Do you know God?

At the end of the day, that's what really matters.

[uwot]

I have made the same point about atheism, it is not neutral, it is not just personal 'disbelief'. If we say that people are wrong to believe in God, then we must be asserting a criteria that distinguishes what people should, and shouldn't believe.

Yes, quite true. But the Atheism you're describing is different from uwot's. He claims he neither has nor needs evidence. I would tend to agree, that if Atheism is any kind of serious claim one makes on other people's beliefs, it ought to have evidence. He thinks not.

Er? Excuse me gentlemen. Londoner, this exchange is from page 46 of this thread:

Follow the thread.

To which you replied:

I have been...

That being so, you cannot have missed myself and other atheists pointing out precisely that atheism is neutral. Nor should it have escaped your attention that several of us have stated explicitly that atheism is not about disbelief, it is instead a personal lack of belief. I have said it many times, it is the difference between 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'I believe there is no god'.
If people say you are "wrong to believe in god", tell them to mind their own business. The issue is not theism, it is religion.; I have no reason to care what anyone believes, until they make it my business by telling me what to think, demanding that my children be taught utter bollocks, or wishing me dead and striving to achieve that, because I disagree with them.
After three months on this forum, you should know better, Londoner. After three years, Mr Can, there is no excuse. By now, you really should understand that from my point of view, your belief in god is different to your faith in Jesus Christ. Your belief in god is essentially that there is a supreme being, which created the universe and generally only interacts with it in ways that require you believe in it to recognise its handiwork. Much of this god's interaction is morally baffling, unless you accept that it'll all turn out nice in the end. Mr Can, there is no conceivable evidence that such a creature does not exist.
On the other hand, there is also your belief that god did interact with the world by manifesting itself in the body of JC. Again, there is no evidence that could prove this did not happen, but there is no compelling evidence outside of the gospels, that it did. There are however, older stories that use exactly the same mythological and narrative conceits, which is good evidence that Christianity was one of many personality cults that just got lucky.

[Londoner]

That sounds like Bill Clinton's line about, "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."

It doesn't seem obscure to me at all. "Exist" means, "is real," "is actual." Another wry definition is that "reality is what pushes back against our wishes." That works in some ways too.

I think Bill was saying something that has long been a feature of philosophy.

'To be' might mean 'true' in the sense of a value in logic, or it might mean 'exist' in the sense of being an empirical experience i.e. 'real' in the way you describe as pushing back at us. (And other things). Those meanings are not the same. And in the case of the second, the 'is' does not equate to the experience.

That 'fire hurts' (whether I want it to or not) makes me class fire as 'real', (as opposed to imaginary), but the experience is the hurt, it is not an experience of the fires 'being'. On the contrary, if I say the fire is 'real' then I am claiming it has an existence beyond that immediate experience i.e. that 'fire' and 'my pain' are not the same thing.

It is also possible that others can still dispute that the fire exists; perhaps the pain is internally generated. (I see an illusion of the fire and the feeling of pain arises because of I associate fire with pain). So to say the fire exists may require additional tests, the confirmation of 'other minds', and so on, turning the meaning of 'real' etc. into a social construct.

To put it another way, existence is not a predicate, and the word 'is' can mean more than one thing. If we treat it as a predicate, or as if it always means one thing, then we create philosophical problems.

Well, "things" exist contingently. But concepts and God exist "necessarily." In the case of concepts, they exist as they are because definitionally, that's what they are. So a "2" exists as a "2" simply because that's what "2" means. But a "2" is merely a concept -- a sort of numerical adjectival ascription, not an independently existing reality.

God would be different, yes. But not wildly so, in some ways. To say "God exists" isn't any weirder than to say "you exist," if what we understand by "exist" means simply to be real. On the other hand, "you" is both a contingent entity and a created being; but God would be uncreated, eternal, and necessary -- in the sense that His existence would not depend on the prior existence of anything.

I would agree with the 'God would be different, yes. But not wildly so, in some ways.' Except that I would argue that everything we believe consists of that same mix. That even 'fire burns' does not sit entirely on the side of the empirical, that every description must also involve the conceptual, if only in the form of logical relationships.

A lot of philosophy has attempted to split the two. Over here is raw experience, cold fact. Over there are concepts, logic etc. And this is how we stick the two together. But we can never quite manage it, because we can never separate out the 'raw experience'. It always comes with a bit of the other stuff already mixed in. (See the gap between early and later Wittgenstein).

This is why I tend to be more sympathetic to religious claims than many on these boards. Atheist or theist, I do not think we can ever draw a sharp line between 'facts' and our conceptual frameworks. And, with conceptual frameworks, all that matters is that they work for us; that they meet our needs.

Why should establishment of belief in God be confined to but one channel (such as the "scientific"), when it's only one of the many relevant sources of data? We don't do that in any other area of life: so why would we think we should to it in regard to God?

As I hope I've been able to convey, that last sentence reflects my own opinion.

[Londoner]

That being so, you cannot have missed myself and other atheists pointing out precisely that atheism is neutral. Nor should it have escaped your attention that several of us have stated explicitly that atheism is not about disbelief, it is instead a personal lack of belief. I have said it many times, it is the difference between 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'I believe there is no god'.

Fine, then as an atheist you have no disagreement with theists. You are simply informing them of your own state of mind, as in 'I fancy some cake'. You are not presenting any argument why you (or anyone else) should think that way.

In that case, if a theist says 'God exists' then your atheism does imply disagreement, it means 'I have no opinion'.

...On the other hand, there is also your belief that god did interact with the world by manifesting itself in the body of JC. Again, there is no evidence that could prove this did not happen, but there is no compelling evidence outside of the gospels, that it did. There are however, older stories that use exactly the same mythological and narrative conceits, which is good evidence that Christianity was one of many personality cults that just got lucky.

However this seems to move away from the first position because it brings in the notion of 'evidence', i.e. reasons why we should or shouldn't believe things.

I think that atheism is more usually of this second type. It says that 'I do not believe in God because...' and then lists reasons that the speaker believes are compelling.

As I was discussing with Mr Can, I don't think we can combine 'When I say this, I am not asserting anything' with 'Other people's opinions are wrong!'

[uwot]

Fine, then as an atheist you have no disagreement with theists. You are simply informing them of your own state of mind, as in 'I fancy some cake'.

My disagreement is with those theists that insist I do want some cake.

You are not presenting any argument why you (or anyone else) should think that way.

And if they tell me why I want their cake, I shall tell them why I don't.

In that case, if a theist says 'God exists' then your atheism does imply disagreement, it means 'I have no opinion'.

I have no strong option on whether or not there is such a thing as god, but as an atheist, I do not believe it. On the other hand, I disagree strongly with any theist who insists that their belief entitles them to dictate how I should live my life.

However this seems to move away from the first position because it brings in the notion of 'evidence', i.e. reasons why we should or shouldn't believe things.

It is none of my business what people believe, as long as they do not try and persuade me that I should think as they do.

I think that atheism is more usually of this second type. It says that 'I do not believe in God because...' and then lists reasons that the speaker believes are compelling.

As I have made abundantly clear, there is no reason not to believe in any god that pleases you. I have also made the point that anyone who thinks they have evidence that any supernatural being does not exist is an idiot. There are many atheists for whom the lack of any evidence that a god exists is sufficient reason to believe it doesn't, but that is very different to thinking that any empirical evidence can demonstrate the existance of a god, which by definition does not admit empirical evidence.

As I was discussing with Mr Can, I don't think we can combine 'When I say this, I am not asserting anything' with 'Other people's opinions are wrong!'

We could have a much more fruitful discussion if you could appreciate the difference between personal belief and organised religion.

[Immanuel Can]

Fine, then as an atheist you have no disagreement with theists. You are simply informing them of your own state of mind, as in 'I fancy some cake'. You are not presenting any argument why you (or anyone else) should think that way....

Well said.

This is precisely the point I've repeatedly made to uwot's rejoinder that Atheists "just disbelieve." It's a really weak defence, because it "sells the farm." If Atheism means only "I disbelieve..." and does not involve evidence, then nobody needs to care.

"I don't believe..." Okay, fine for him. Some of the rest of us do. Many even think we have reasons and evidence. But he has no interest in engaging on that level, and in fact, insists he doesn't owe us any of that. And since he neither has not wants to use evidence to support his case, there's simply no more to be said: he disbelieves.

So what?

[thedoc]

It seems that there are some people who believe that posting on a forum like this is somehow trying to force others to believe as the poster does. Anything posted on a public forum can be read or ignored, it is entirely up to the discretion on the member. Some people take offence that anyone with a different opinion should be allowed to post their opinion where they can see it, if these people don't want to see opposing ideas, they should crawl back under the rock they crawled out of. It is my understanding that many of the members of this forum are Americans, and in America there is free speech, which means that as a citizen you can say what you think and believe, granted there are some countries where such actions are not allowed, but this forum does not hold to that idea.

[henry quirk]

Joe sez, 'eat the cake'.

I say, 'no, thanks anyway.'

Joe sez, 'c'mon, you know you want some.'

I say, 'mebbe, mebbe not...not the point, Joe...right now, I decline the cake.'

If Joe shrugs, sez 'okay', then well and fine.

If Joe persists and insists, I can walk away.

If Joe blocks my path, I can punch him in the throat.

As it stands: not a single person participating in this thread has been restrained, and, since it's obvious not a jot of progress has been, or will be, had, I suggest those in favor of cake, and those who pass on cake, agree to disagree, and leave one another be.

It's Christmas time...let it go, for a little while, anyway.

[thedoc]

If Joe blocks my path, I can punch him in the throat.

Be sure to have several witnesses that are not Joe's friends.

[Londoner]

My disagreement is with those theists that insist I do want some cake.

Those would be theists who are insisting that you are also a theist. I do not think that is true of Mr Kant, but we can always ask him.

I have no strong option on whether or not there is such a thing as god, but as an atheist, I do not believe it. On the other hand, I disagree strongly with any theist who insists that their belief entitles them to dictate how I should live my life.

Or presumably vice-versa. So would you never criticise anyone else's beliefs or behaviours? Maybe that is the case, but if so that is just your position. It doesn't necessarily go with atheism, indeed some atheists consider that they have a moral system - and one superior to the ones associated with organised religion. So, while I understand you are telling me what you think, you cannot claim it as the meaning of 'atheism'.

As I have made abundantly clear, there is no reason not to believe in any god that pleases you. I have also made the point that anyone who thinks they have evidence that any supernatural being does not exist is an idiot. There are many atheists for whom the lack of any evidence that a god exists is sufficient reason to believe it doesn't, but that is very different to thinking that any empirical evidence can demonstrate the existance of a god, which by definition does not admit empirical evidence.

You will see that in the case of Mr Can, his belief arises from a number of sources.

Incidentally, empirical evidence cannot demonstrate the existence of anything. The assumption that it does is not itself empirical.

We could have a much more fruitful discussion if you could appreciate the difference between personal belief and organised religion.

I can be a democrat. There can be organised democracies. What is your point?