Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God".
I don't. I assume the definition of the god believer I am talking to.
I don't have a definition for "god". I have no need to define things I don't even believe in.
Theists are the ones who claim that some god exists. Upto them to define them.
And as you probably know, if you ask 10 random theists to define the god they believe in, chances are rather big that you'll get 10 different definitions.
So when I say that there is no evidence for the existance of God, what I really mean is "
all the god beliefs / definitions that theists have presented to me, had no objective evidence in support of them"
And I dare say that this will be the case for the majority of atheists.
For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.
All falsifiable objects anyway.
Non-existing and unfalsifiable things, tend to not have such properties, that is true.
The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent.
Aka: unfalsifiable and as a result, indistinguishable from non-existing things.
However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist.
I'ld rather say that there is a presupposition to what it means to exist and how it can be known if a thing exists, full stop.
It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.
As clarified above: that is not the case.
I don't define gods. Theists define gods. I just respond to those definitions.
I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God.
Yes, from the perspective of a believer, I can understand how you see that as a "problem".
The alternative though, seems to be special pleading.
I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined.
Please....
Theists themselves don't even agree on a god definition.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".
If it can't be objective experienced / detected one way or the other, then there is no reason to believe it is real.
As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional.
Strange. It doesn't seem so "delusional" that my pc boots when I press the power button.
My computer is the result of millions upon millions of measurements, predictions, scientific research etc etc etc.
If all those things are apparantly "delusional", then why do nukes explode? Why do planes fly? Why do cars drive? How come you can read this very post?
The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects.
I dare you to put that to the test. Take a baseball bat and smack yourself upside the head. Then repeat that "in reality, there are no objects".
In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance.
Particles aren't material?
ps: energy is material to. It's physical.
But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed.
That is simply incorrect and a common misunderstanding of what is actually going on.
Also, even ignoring this mistake, keep in mind that quantum effects only apply at the quantum level, not the macro level. The moon is there, even when nobody is watching. Neither will the moon pop in and out of existance like virtual particles do.
The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.
No.
Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale.
No. We just don't make stuff up or "reinterpret" this evidence while wearing theistic goggles with a priori beliefs about "supernatural minds".
Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism.
False again.
I'm not a materialist. At least not in the sense that I have an a priori belief that the material is all that exists.
I'ld agree that at this point in time we ONLY have evidence of the material. It is the only thing we can currently show / demonstrate to exist.
If tomorrow someone comes up with objective evidence showing that "other stuff" exists as well, I'ld have absolutely no problem accepting that. I'ld actually be quite excited about that - it's bound to be very interesting!
If I were to have a dogmatic stance on materialism, then nothing would be able to convince me otherwise and I'ld hold on to that position
in spite of evidence to the contrary.
And the fact is, that it's not even a belief that I hold right now - in a world were NO evidence of anything other then the material exists.
To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo.
It's not taboo. It's just wrong. It's not true.
It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system
Atheism is not a belief system and it's kind of strange that you say that it is, considering you literally opened your post by defining atheism as NOT being a belief system..............................
So where did you make a mistake? In your opening sentence where you defined atheism or in this part, where you called it a belief system which is in direct contradiction of your definition?
Remember what your definition stated:
atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system
Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue
Because there is no issue. There is only your strawman, your incorrect charactarisation of what atheists believe or don't believe.
The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."
I don't need to deny anything here, really.
All I need to do is point out how you are strawmanning my atheism and worldview.
