secularmerlin

I believe the 'unconscious BB' model of creation is essentially correct and the conscious creator model is essentially incorrect.. 

I reject both hypotheses based on their untestable nature.

My definition of God is a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe. If that's true, it's enough to demonstrate that atheism is false. Whether a claim is "vague" is largely subjective and has nothing to do with its veracity.

Then I await your definition.

The focus isn't to "prove conclusively" anything. The focus is whether belief or disbelief in God is more rational.

whether belief or disbelief in God is more rational.

The FSM is a 'fictional character' and as such tricky to deal with.

Like most god concepts he would appear to be kieth but it is exceedingly difficult to prove conclusively that a spaghetti monster of the gaps doesn't exist. At a ceetain point you either remain skeptical of propositions that have no sufficient evidence or you accept one or more. My only real question is once you have accepted one why not accept all?

So was that your definition of the flying spaghetti monster?

I only care when people believe or disbelieve a claim. 

Again, no, I'm not talking about knowledge, just belief or disbelief.

Define "the flying spaghetti monster." Are you talking about a flying monster made of spaghetti or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" which is different than the former?

No, in the case of disbelief they just believe the claim is untrue after hearing it.

To make it short and sweet, you either believe the claim is untrue after hearing it or you don't believe it's untrue after hearing it. If you believe it's untrue, you disbelieve it. If you don't believe it's untrue, but still don't believe it, then you neither believe nor disbelieve it. This is called mere non-belief.

Tell me in the case of "disbelief" your saying the person thinks they know that x is false correct?

If you claim X does not exist, all you have to do is show evidence that X does not exist. 

Well it begs the question as to what you mean by "reject." If "rejecting" a claim doesn't mean the mere non-acceptance of a claim, what exactly does it mean? 

I'm clarifying what the intended meaning of "reject" is since it's a semantics game that atheist experience is playing.

Well it begs the question as to what you mean by "reject." If "rejecting" a claim doesn't mean the mere non-acceptance of a claim, what exactly does it mean? 

I'm clarifying what the intended meaning of "reject" is since it's a semantics game that atheist experience is playing.

"Not accepting a claim IS rejecting it." Newborns wouldn't accept the claim that God exists if someone were to proclaim it right in front of them. So you're saying these newborns are rejecting the claim?

Non-belief encompasses several different positions.

So newborn babies reject the claim?

I do not see how this logically follows from what I have said.

"Not believing" = non-belief. Non-belief encompasses both mere non-belief and disbelief .

"I don't believe you" is ambiguous. You aren't understanding the heavy semantics game the atheist experience hosts are playing.

I do not need a justification for not believing something beyond there being no sufficient evidence of it. Please explain how this is unreasonable.

There's no logical difference between rejecting "God exists" as untrue versus the positive claim that God does not exist.

We would both have a burden of proof of I made the positive claim that God existed and you believed it to be untrue. You would have no burden of proof if you neither accepted it to be true nor rejected it to be untrue.

I do not need to make a claim to reject yours as false. Period. 

So if you reject the claim "God exists" to be untrue, that would also require evidence.

I think we're on the same page. I don't require evidence that somebody believes or disbelieves something. All that requires evidence is the claim.

Excelent. 

In short, if you make a claim it is down to you to justify it.   It's impolite to simply demand anybody else proves the negation is true.

That applies whether the claim is positive (eg god exists) or negative (god does not exist).

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It is unclear to me why I am getting such resistance to this concept, which I too regard as very reasonable.

Disbelieving the positive claim also carries a burden of proof.

Mere non-belief has no burden of proof

Disbelief does.

Mere belief does not require a burden of proof (or more to the point that burden csnnot ever be met and so uou must either take someone at their word or accept that you cannot have any sensible discussion on the subject. 

I have never asked you to prove you believe in god(s) I simply take you at your word because I cannot know what you believe more than you do.

The same goes for disbelief. It is claims based on belief/disbelief that require a burden of proof. Claims like "it is more rational to believe in a god than to disbelieve in god".

If my logic is flawed please point out the problem specifically. 

What exactly would you do if you wanted to find God?

what would you consider favorable evidence?

I don't think that hearing voices (or more to the point immaginimg you hear voices) makes you crazy. It is when you do not recognize that the voices have no external source that I would recommend that some one seek help.

You veered completely away from the question.

Wouldn't you agree that the creator of the universe would be able to provide evidence, and/or proof of his existence to where an individual would know he was the creator?

As far as preferred religion, I probably would have chosen Buddhism. Or, possibly Catholicism strictly for superficial reasons.

Well of course there's no reference to primitive humans and deities since this is a religiously neutral article. So basically the idea is that since monkeys show signs of considerable intelligence, then assumingly they might have the ability to imagine a higher form of monkeyhood.

In light of intelligent design

Christianity is not unique with Buddhism, and any other religion that faced persecution. More specifically, Christianity is not the only religion that faces persecution. That's all I meant.

I may not be sure what you're getting at, but specific religious conversions are unique. For instance, Buddhists don't adhere to any god or deity. 

Buddhists generally, particularly western Buddhists don't convert due to deity identification.

I suggest that one has to take attitude to the negation of a claim into account.

I'm imagining a scale that runs from +10 (being very confident a claim is true) to -10 (being very confident the negation of aclaim is true).  Words like 'skeptical', 'belief', 'non-belief' and 'disbelief' are somewhat imprecise and ambiguous as to where they fall on that scale!   My attitude to 'god exists' is about -9.   That also tells you my attiude to the clain 'god does not exist'.  What word you want to use to describe  -9 on that scale is enirely upto you - but it's not necessarily the word everyone would choose; such is the nature of everyday language

I do noy disagree with the caveat that under no circumstances shpuld the burden of proof be shifted from the claimant to the skeptic.

There is my definition of my own soft solipsism.

Well, let's hope I'm a good guesser!

My soft solipsism, like my atheism, is a natural consequence of my skepticism. I do not know how to tell the difference between reality and a persistent convincing illusion so even though I am perfectly willing to accept reality at face value for convenience sake I have no illusions about ever being certain that it is real.

Skepticism does not meet what I would consider a position, more appropriately an approach, or a way, as I would normally understand.  I'm wondering what you meant.

It is true that skepticism is not a positive claim of any kind. All I mean is that it is never rational to believe something if you have no reason to believe. In fact not just any reason is sufficient to guarantee a rational position. 

Is there an agreed definition of 'soft solipsism'?

There is my definition of my own soft solipsism.

What do you mean by your "position"?

Are you familiar with the term "solipsism"?

It seems to me that it is just as much a leap of faith to "withhold belief" in free will as it does to accept it, 

I don't think that disbelief in freewill is necessarily the default position. 

What does it mean to you personally if you do not have free will?

What does it mean personally if you do have free will?

Please answer these questions even if you think they are irrelevant.

What if your preferences are installed by deterministic forces beyond your control?

What if they are installed by a magic invisible man in the sky? Neither scenario guarantees or even suggests freewill.

 I don't see any reason to assume any mental thought process in monkeys. I can 

respect that. 

But I never claimed it was unique. That's why I mentioned Buddhists in China were persecuted as well to make sure I didn't give that impression.

did you hear a voice in your head?

I don't think that hearing voices (or more to the point immaginimg you hear voices) makes you crazy. It is when you do not recognize that the voices have no external source that I would recommend that some one seek help.

I have to ask, why do you suggest I don't have evidence, and why do you think my belief is preferred?

I'm not implying Poly is wrong.

Some people will say it's scientific proof (because we all can see it) that God exists, and a number of people become believers. Inevitably, some people will say the performance was manufactured by aliens. 

That is interesting. I would reject both those claims. 

An example of the flaw in your theory is that people do become believers because of someone's personal testimony.

No that is an example of a flaw in the way people examine evidence.

The rights mentioned in the constitution are not contingent upon it, or the government of the United States. 

You are correct. They are contingent upon our accepting them as a nation. Rights are not measurable quantifiable things and so no peice of paper or governmental system can make them more real than the people living under them are willing to accept.