Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, December 18, 2014, 21:44 (3627 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: I think the issue is in how the questions are framed. 
A theist can examine purely how something was done and believe that God chose to do it that way regardless of the results.-But we don't actually know how most things were done, and we even see results differently. We don't know how the universe, life, evolution (for those theists who believe in it) or consciousness originated. We see the results and try to work backwards: e.g. David sees humans and thinks they were God's preplanned goal, you see the millions of extinctions and interpret them as necessary precursors of God's purpose, whatever that may be, and I put on my theist's hat and see a higgledy-piggledy bush, which might suggest that God started it all off without knowing where it would lead. Nothing can be examined “purely”. Ugh, it's enough to drive anyone to agnosticism!-TONY: An Agnostic can believe or disbelieve whatever they choose, and the question of whether or not there is a God is of little importance.-It's not a matter of choice in my case. I simply don't know what to believe, because I don't find any of the explanations convincing. I don't think the existence of God is of little importance (I would scarcely have opened this website if I didn't have strong feelings on the subject), but I can enjoy my life without him, and if he exists and if I behave myself, I hope he won't object to that. I guess I'll owe him an apology, or I might join Bertrand Russell and ask: “God, why did you make the evidence for your existence so insufficient?”
 
TONY: An Atheist, however, has to disprove the existence of God AND prove that everything had to be possible WITHOUT God. 
Atheist, by definition, have to prove a negative.-If I were an atheist, I would argue that theists have to prove there IS a god! There is no default position here.