Words of encouragement from scientism

I agree an unqualified "atheist" means that you don't believe in any god, but it seems reasonable that it could be qualified like any other descriptor, if relevant.

You seem to understand what it's like to be a bit of an atheist, in that case. And I could take you through each and every god, except the one you believe in, and get you to admit that you are an atheist with respect to that god. And there is that oft-quoted phrase - an atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in one more god than you don't believe in. But I don't think it's that simple. At some point, I think you would balk at the comparison.

Let's take you and a Sikh. Between the two of you, you don't believe in just as many gods as the atheist doesn't, including each other's gods. Yet I suspect that observation doesn't make the atheist's position any more reasonable to you. Something feels off about a lack of belief, even if that belief doesn't concur with yours?

Or is it that when your described your disbelief in Thor you added, "I also accept that it is a belief and that, although it is based on reason, there is a slim theoretical chance that something exists that one might call Thor." But you don't see an atheist making the same concession about your god? 

Linda

I think the comparison is reasonable and although I have always believed in God in some form, when off-guard I often find myself thinking in materialistic terms, so I have an understanding of agnosticism and an acceptance of atheism but what I don't understand, is how atheists can't see that their own position is as much a belief as any religious position.  Observation alone cannot tell you there is no God, it can only tell you there is no evidence for God, and even then, only by your own personal interpretation of the evidence or lack thereof.

[Laird]

I figured all the closed-minded materialists would pile on this one

Yeah. You were kind of trolling...

[Laird]

Sure, writing this sarcastic screed helps you entrench your justifications that your beliefs are valid. But it doesn't help someone like me at all.

You are beyond help from me in the sense you intend. My post was intended not to help you but to prick your condescending conceit.

Science doesn't only look at physical matter, though. Science looks at stuff which is decidedly non-physical and non-matter by any stretch of the words. Scientists just don't care that the words no longer describe our folk intuitions about "physical" and "matter", but the rest of you apparently didn't get the memo.

Linda

Perhaps "matter" was a limiting word to use but that which can be detected by our instruments has to be physical in some sense of the word.  (one could argue that psychology is science, but I personally wouldn't)

Isn't that all we've been talking about?

Linda

This grew out of a post of yours in which you said that you don't put faith in something (I can't remember what and I'm not going back in the middle of typing).  The implication in saying that was that your position is not a belief.  I think I brought God into it because it seemed the easiest way to discuss belief itself but then we started focussing on God and religion instead of the main point.  To answer your question - no.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  I think this has been thrashed out too many times before and it bores me.  

Still, thank you for an interesting and civilized discussion.  I enjoyed it.