I've answered this, I do not have to pick the area of science that underlines that choice. But I will say that it does not have to be some standard that a theist decides for an atheist.
Very well, it seems we reach an impasse on that area.
And again you missed the point. Science is rooted in doubt and question, Religion is rooted in belief and certainty.
Well I'm not here concerned with "religion" but with atheism and God. Science is based on assumptions.
You cannot have this both ways, decide.
You'll have to explain, what decision are you asking me for? You wrote "You are the one deciding that there is evidence as a theist, why does an atheist have to accept that?" yet I
never anywhere said anyone has to accept anything.
What I think is you are manipulating meaning to make a point you have yet to reveal.
Meaning of what? is this not a simple question for you?
"If I ask someone why are you an atheist rather than a theist, do you really think beliefs play nor role in their choice?"
You are acting like "deciding" between atheism and theism is the same train of thought. They are not.
If one is an atheist then clearly at some point they have made a conscious decision to refer to themselves that way, do you not agree?
Therefore I would expect they can articulate the reasons leading to that decision.
And "rational" has nothing to do with belief.
I disagree.
I believe that there'll be an earthquake in LA within ten years, this is a rational belief.
No, atheism requires no beliefs. That is the point, the absence of belief.
This is very obviously untrue. An atheist
believes its better to be an atheist than not, this is what I said. If you disagree then what other reason can you give for someone being an atheist when there are alternatives?
Just saying "No" is not a refutation.
Again you are manipulating terms and making assumptions of science that are invalid.
Science has no association to religion or belief. Moreover science evolves, corrects, and clarifies understanding as that is the basis for continual process. You are acting like science sets for a set of conclusions that are never reviewed or evaluated again, and that is literally you lying about the intentions of science.
Scientists do believe things, they believe certain claims about the natural world that cannot be proven, these are very rational but they are nevertheless beliefs, this is easy to check.
This is not me "acting like science sets for a set of conclusions that are never reviewed or evaluated again" that's something you're imagining, I said what I said and I stand by what I said.
Finally accusing me of "lying" is an insult an ad-hominem attack.
=================================================================
There are some very deep questions here, and this is why I created the thread. I think that atheists tend to paint an artificially simplistic picture about atheism.
This gives the impression that is simple, straightforward, rational and logical to be an atheist (sometimes even implying that only a fool would not be an atheist) but the same epistemological problems that are present theism are also present in atheism.
I encounter many atheists that know very little about logic, science, epistemology, rationality, truth, Dawkins and Krauss are two prominent examples.
This is the reason for some of what you say, you are not aware of the true philosophical foundations.
).
