Jan Ardena: Yes, they do. But look what I was responding to. You wrote about what the "culture of atheism does not like". According to the definition you just gave, the "culture of atheism" is no more than disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God. In other words, we know that atheists "do not like" to believe in God, and that's all we get from that. But you talked about atheists not liking "to view [themselves] as not, or uninformed". There's nothing about being informed or viewing oneself as being informed in the definition of atheism you just gave. It follows that you're assuming that there is a wider "culture of atheism" that goes beyond the bare definition you just gave. I pointed out to you that, whatever that culture is, it is not a monoculture. Atheists aren't a robot army, all sharing the same views on everything. Like I said, the only guarantee is that they all fit your bare definition, just quoted. I see. Your comment was not so much about a generic "culture of atheism", but was rather a comment on your perception of iceaura's and my particular attitudes? Correct? If so, then why generalise? Not because I'm an atheist. Because it's a matter of common courtesy and it's about the acceptable standards of reasonable discourse. If I claim that "Theists all have three arms" and you say "No they don't", do you think it should be up to you to prove me wrong, or up to me to show at least some evidence to support my (rather extraordinary) claim? At the very least, I'd say I should be obliged to produce at least a few examples of theists with three arms, in support of my thesis. It would be almost effortless for you to refute this particular claim, for example by pointing out that you yourself are a theist and you (presumably) have less than three arms. But it's not about how easy or hard it might be to justify the negative of the claim. Rather, it's a matter of common sense and even good manners that the person making the positive claim has the onus of supporting it, in the first instance. So, in context: if I were to claim "God doesn't exist", then it should be up to me to justify that claim, in the first instance. It would be bad form for me to make the claim and expect you to prove that God exists (i.e. expect you to prove me wrong). Of course, in the real world I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, in the real world you do make the claim that God exists. The onus is therefore on you to try to support your claim, in the first instance, not for me to prove you wrong. I already accept that theism - the belief that God exists - exists. I also accept that it is possible that God exists (which is what I think you meant to say there). But you go beyond the possibility. You assert actuality. That is the claim you need to support. I'm not sure what you're referring to? Which inferior idealistic notions? You're welcome to your opinion. There's a whole thread in which for hundreds of posts you failed to produce a single thing. The closest you got to evidence was to say that you agreed with all of William Lane Craig's philosophical arguments for God, none of which constitute evidence. Why not? Is the evidence so subjective that one must already have come to the conclusion prior to evaluating the evidence? What evidence? There's no evidence to reject, so far. Not from you. You haven't presented anything. What evidence do you find convincing? (A waste of time asking you, I know, or you would have already put it in the thread dedicated to that question.) You insist on repeating this misrepresentation, regardless of how many times you are explicitly and carefully corrected. Why is that? I understand that it might make you more comfortable in yourself, but it's really a lousy way to engage in a discussion. It shows that you're willing to ride roughshod over the truth for the purpose of scoring a pyrrhic rhetorical point. Who do you think you're fooling? And is this what your theist ethic calls appropriate behaviour - this continual dishonesty? Regardless what you believe about ear wiggling, you can demonstrably wiggle your ears. That is, if I didn't believe your claim then you could, in principle, present objective evidence to back up your claim (e.g. a video of yourself displaying this talent). In contrast, you believe in God, but you can produce nothing to demonstrate that this God of yours exists as a real thing, separate from your subjective belief. It's kind of like you claiming you can wiggle your ears, and then when asked "Show us, then!", you merely respond with "No!" So maybe you can wiggle your ears; maybe you can't. The best we can say is that no factual basis for your claim is apparent. Empty words on your part. If there was actually something wrong with what I wrote there, you could explain what was wrong with it. Instead, there's just unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion from you that I can't be right, that I'm wrong, that I have no idea what I'm talking about, etc. Don't you see how this kind of knee-jerk dismissal of inconvenient arguments does nothing to help your case and everything to damage your credibility? As I said, belief in God is in no way "fundamental". It is a complex web of belief built on prior belief built on prior belief. The fact that you have no apparent awareness of the really fundamental beliefs that you rely on to support such a complex notion such as a belief in a God merely emphasises just how superficial your understanding is about how your own beliefs (about anything) actually come about. This is one area in which learning some science could potentially help you. I have no idea what you mean by that. New information about what? The fact is: before you decide to believe in God, you already have lots of beliefs about all kinds of relevant topics, some of which I listed in my previous post. Many disparate prior beliefs are necessary for it to be possible for your to hold the belief in God, in fact for such a belief to even make any sense to you. Sure. A person's beliefs about God can change as a result of their experience, new information they acquire, the persuasion of other people, and so on and so forth. No. He merely has to let go of the idea that his God concept represents something that exists as a real object in the world. To become theist, one first has to be aware that such a belief system is available. In other words, one must first learn about the concept of God. The final step is starting to believe that the concept describes something that exists as a real object in the world. That's how it works. The sentences "I believe in God" and "I hold a belief in God" are synonymous. If you want to try to split this particular hair, you'll need to try harder. Insults are no substitute for argument; you really ought to have worked that out by now. More insults, I see. This time it's the assertion that atheists lack the capacity to comprehend that God exists. Ho hum. I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm interested to find out whether or not God exists, but it's not because of my lack of intellectual ability, I assure you.