Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Witzkatz wrote:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/rouen-geiselnehmer-trug-fussfessel-a-1104872.html

One of the attackers was already in the court system for trying to get to Syria twice in 2015. He was wearing one of those electronic tracking foot-bracelet-thingies and was only allowed to leave his house during specific times.

That system certainly doesn't seem to work well for jihadists with nothing to lose, like in this scenario.

Apparently, French police took in a 16-year-old who might be the brother of an internationally pursued criminal, but I'm not getting the exact connection right now.

The horse has bolted so they are trying to look effective.
The kid has probably been interviewed and asked the important question already 'where is your brother?'.

@ AlmightyWalrus

As soon as you answer my question I'll answer yours asap.

In the meantime, details emerged showing that the guy who slit the priests throat was well known to the authorities. He'd been arrested for trying to get to Syria multiple times and somehow managed to get out on bail on an electronic tag. Hard questions need to be asked, and someone handling it needs to lose their job.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AlmightyWalrus

As soon as you answer my question I'll answer yours asap.

In the meantime, details emerged showing that the guy who slit the priests throat was well known to the authorities. He'd been arrested for trying to get to Syria multiple times and somehow managed to get out on bail on an electronic tag. Hard questions need to be asked, and someone handling it needs to lose their job.

I'm not answering a leading question, it's an exercise in futility.

Well, I was out in the field all day yesterday, so I got to this one late.

the fact he shouted Daesh was already talked about, because its definitely an insult to them, which is why most Soldiers call them that instead of ISIS or ISIL.

Islam is not the problem, anymore than christianity was during the crusades. The problem is Wahabi-ism. Just like the Catholic church was during the crusades.

If you don't understand the difference between a follower of Wahabi and mainstream Islam then thats a problem you should correct.

Now religious zealotry is the problem. All religions are bad. Thats how I feel, because they hold humanity back, but not necessarily because they claim you should kill people(not in todays modern age anyway.)

So should we have this discussion, yes, but we should have it correctly. Not blindly.

the moment they hit a priest in a church, this individual knew he would get extra attention. You have to remember that just because one person does a terrible act and you can't find the connection to Daesh doesn't mean there isn't one because they operate by getting individuals to do stuff, not in an organized front on attack, but in several individuals or small teams. Its how they are effective.

While I don't agree with all religion being bad, the distinction between Wahhabism and Islam as a whole is spot on.

So one of the guys was being monitored. Had repeatedly tried to leave the country to travel to Syria to join ISIS. He been reported to the authorities by his own family because of his radicalization.

This still happened.

That is scary.

 djones520 wrote:
So one of the guys was being monitored. Had repeatedly tried to leave the country to travel to Syria to join ISIS. He been reported to the authorities by his own family because of his radicalization.

But why don't the good muslims report radicals tho?

 redleger wrote:
W

Now religious zealotry is the problem. All religions are bad. Thats how I feel, because they hold humanity back, but not necessarily because they claim you should kill people(not in todays modern age anyway.)

Atheism should be included in that statement, it is delusional to think otherwise. Especially as to how doctrinaire atheism can be, and how many zealots it generates.
Once you understand that you will notice getting rid of religion is not a solution, as it replaces one set of zealots with another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So one of the guys was being monitored. Had repeatedly tried to leave the country to travel to Syria to join ISIS. He been reported to the authorities by his own family because of his radicalization.

This still happened.

That is scary.

You any idea how many radical moslems there are in Europe, you cant watch them all all the time. Also doing so treads on established rights.

Oh I know, believe me. That rights vs safety thing is definitely a sticky issue, and I'm one who will always lean on the side of the rights.

It's still scary though. It's almost like our hands our just tied on the matter.

 Orlanth wrote:

 redleger wrote:
W

Now religious zealotry is the problem. All religions are bad. Thats how I feel, because they hold humanity back, but not necessarily because they claim you should kill people(not in todays modern age anyway.)

Atheism should be included in that statement, it is delusional to think otherwise. Especially as to how doctrinaire atheism can be, and how many zealots it generates.
Once you understand that you will notice getting rid of religion is not a solution, as it replaces one set of zealots with another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So one of the guys was being monitored. Had repeatedly tried to leave the country to travel to Syria to join ISIS. He been reported to the authorities by his own family because of his radicalization.

This still happened.

That is scary.

You any idea how many radical moslems there are in Europe, you cant watch them all all the time. Also doing so treads on established rights.

I would be happy to discuss why that is just incorrect on all accounts, but I don't think this thread would be the right place. I welcome proper discussion on the matter. However Athiest's have no religion. It can not be included. Atheism is kind of a misnomer, since it does not fall under a religious banner of any sorts. Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

 redleger wrote:
Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

Stalin was an atheist. He was a zealous proponent of his humanist ideals, to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.
15,000,000 people can attest to his zealotry.

A particularly zealous christian might bankrupt himself feeding and clothing the poor.

Zealotry to bad ideas is the issue. Islam just happens to be filled with bad ideas.

 =Angel= wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

Stalin was an atheist. He was a zealous proponent of his humanist ideals, to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.
15,000,000 people can attest to his zealotry.

A particularly zealous christian might bankrupt himself feeding and clothing the poor.

Or he could be zealously trying to bomb abortion clinics. Lets not even go there.

Zealotry to bad ideas is the issue. Islam just happens to be filled with bad ideas.

To clarify a humanist wouldn't kill other humans, and Stalin was a very very bad man.

I'm looking more to funding science, allowing research that can save lives, but is held back due to lawmakers religious views. Think dark ages. It has been proposed that we would be 1000 years more advanced had the church not stifled progression. Essentially Islam wants to do the same thing. Once saw a video of an Imam in Saudi Arabia explain how the world is not in orbit around the sun, and the sun does in fact orbit the earth as the center of the universe, using the fact that if the earth moved airplanes would not be able to travel. This is the kind of things that hold us back. Teaching creationism in schools, tax payers funding giant arks with scientifically inaccurate information such as dinosaurs and people living together. Once we stop that, we might be able to take mankind forward into a higher state of evolution or at a minimum solve many of the issues that plague us. Humanists generally believe in the good of humankind, and are not necessarily nefarious in the treatment. Isaac Asimov was a known humanist and never saw him preaching love for Stalin.

 redleger wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

Stalin was an atheist. He was a zealous proponent of his humanist ideals, to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.
15,000,000 people can attest to his zealotry.

A particularly zealous christian might bankrupt himself feeding and clothing the poor.

Or he could be zealously trying to bomb abortion clinics. Lets not even go there.

Zealotry to bad ideas is the issue. Islam just happens to be filled with bad ideas.

To clarify a humanist wouldn't kill other humans, and Stalin was a very very bad man.

Good and bad are a matter of perspective. I don't think Stalin will have thought of himself as a bad man. Neither did most of the people living under stalinism, and neither do many people in modern Russia. So is Stalin truly bad? You can't say that.

 redleger wrote:

I'm looking more to funding science, allowing research that can save lives, but is held back due to lawmakers religious views. Think dark ages.

The Dark Ages? The time period were virtually all research and science was done in monasteries? Really, you couldn't have picked a worse example
It has been proposed that we would be 1000 years more advanced had the church not stifled progression.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

Stalin was an atheist. He was a zealous proponent of his humanist ideals, to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.
15,000,000 people can attest to his zealotry.

A particularly zealous christian might bankrupt himself feeding and clothing the poor.

Or he could be zealously trying to bomb abortion clinics. Lets not even go there.

Zealotry to bad ideas is the issue. Islam just happens to be filled with bad ideas.

To clarify a humanist wouldn't kill other humans, and Stalin was a very very bad man.

Good and bad are a matter of perspective. I don't think Stalin will have thought of himself as a bad man. Neither did most of the people living under stalinism, and neither do many people in modern Russia. So is Stalin truly bad? You can't say that.

 redleger wrote:

I'm looking more to funding science, allowing research that can save lives, but is held back due to lawmakers religious views. Think dark ages.

The Dark Ages? The time period were virtually all research and science was done in monasteries? Really, you couldn't have picked a worse example
It has been proposed that we would be 1000 years more advanced had the church not stifled progression.

And any historian would be able to explain to you that that is utter bs. In the Middle Ages, the church was the only thing preserving and developing new knowledge. Monks were the only people who were concerned about preserving and recovering the knowledge of the past, and the only people with the time and skills necessary to conduct research (and usually also the only people capable of reading. Even many kings in the Middle Ages were illiterate). Without the church, the societal collapse resulting from the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Migration Period would have sent Western Europe back to the early Iron Age, in which it still would have been stuck today. Our modern Western civilisation and its system of science is almost entirely thanks to the Church, and especially to the many monastic orders of the Middle Ages and the Reformers of the Renaissance (and of course later on the Enlightenment and the scholars who have continued on that base)

 redleger wrote:

Essentially Islam wants to do the same thing. Once saw a video of an Imam in Saudi Arabia explain how the world is not in orbit around the sun, and the sun does in fact orbit the earth as the center of the universe, using the fact that if the earth moved airplanes would not be able to travel. This is the kind of things that hold us back. Teaching creationism in schools, tax payers funding giant arks with scientifically inaccurate information such as dinosaurs and people living together.

Reality-impaired imams in Saudi Arabia and teaching creationism in schools are completely unrelated things... Next you will want to ban all philosophy in schools or something like that because one nihilistic social darwinist once had some really creepy opinions. Or ban Jurrassic Park from being shown to children because it has scientifically innaccurate information about dinosaurs. In any case, A islamic leader in Saudi Arabia having an unorthodox viewpoint doesn't say anything either way about creationism in schools.

 redleger wrote:
Once we stop that, we might be able to take mankind forward into a higher state of evolution or at a minimum solve many of the issues that plague us. Humanists generally believe in the good of humankind, and are not necessarily nefarious in the treatment. Isaac Asimov was a known humanist and never saw him preaching love for Stalin.

Maybe not Asimov, but there are plenty of Stalin-praising Russian humanists alright.

I have to agree, the "dark age" thing is out of date, it has been erased, it is not true.

 redleger wrote:


I would be happy to discuss why that is just incorrect on all accounts, but I don't think this thread would be the right place.

It is the right place because when religious violence occurs and a thread is made on th subject an atheist oftimes turns up with is 'solution' of ridding the world of religion.

So I am 'incorrect on all accounts', you sound very sure. Let us see:

 redleger wrote:

I welcome proper discussion on the matter. However Athiest's have no religion. It can not be included.

Atheism is a religious choice, its is a faith system like any other because there is no proof for it like any other.
Atheism is also indistinguishable from any other religious movement, because it has the same societal effects as any other religious movement. Including having proponents who demand they know what is best for everyone, want to abolish alternate world views - on pain of death in many cases, and wish to form a political hegemony based on their collective religious choice - again often with penalties for non-compliance.


Ultimately there is no difference between a Maoist atheist telling Tibetans they must abandon their faith - or die. Or a Daesh extremist telling people to convert to Islam - or die.

 redleger wrote:

Atheism is kind of a misnomer, since it does not fall under a religious banner of any sorts.

And here you make the classic mistake of the zealot. Your faith choice is inherently different to all others.
Now most faith choices contains this to an extent, as most consider themselves special, but usually this is just left to theological application of the 'chosen'; though some pantheonistic beliefs try to accept multiple faith systems under one theology.
The danger is when one faith system is expected to have special social hegemony, and therefore practitioners need not respect any other.


Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity, that is a faith choice no different than choosing any religious belief. You cannot say that because your belief system doesn't include faith in any deity or supernatural system is is therefore culturally superior and is above critique. Tis is the danger of atheist dogma, adherents demand it is seen in separation from other fanatical religious movements, in spite of using similar means for similar ends.

 redleger wrote:

Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

Most fanatics think something similar. i.e. When the world is converted to Islam there will be no 'chains holding it back'. i.e. Jihad is moving humanity 'forwards'.

How far are you willing to go to establish your dream?
Thankfully many atheists I speak to on this issue can recognise the mental trap, and dont want to and never intended to be docgtrinally indistinguihablefrom a religious hegemonist.

 Orlanth wrote:

Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity

Alternatively atheists simply don't believe in any 'man in the sky'. Who says it s matter of choice? You don't choose what to believe in, you either believe in something or you don't.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity

Alternatively atheists simply don't believe in any 'man in the sky'. Who says it s matter of choice? You don't choose what to believe in, you either believe in something or you don't.

And that of itself is a choice.

More to the point its an actional choice as it involves self identification.
If someone claims to be an atheist they are not professing a lack of a faith, they are professing a choice to not have a faith.
Someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not and doesn't care either way is not an atheist. Also those people critically dont espouse atheist dogma.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity

Alternatively atheists simply don't believe in any 'man in the sky'. Who says it s matter of choice? You don't choose what to believe in, you either believe in something or you don't.

And that of itself is a choice.

More to the point its an actional choice as it involves self identification.
If someone claims to be an atheist they are not professing a lack of a faith, they are professing a choice to not have a faith.
Someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not and doesn't care either way is not an atheist. Also those people critically dont espouse atheist dogma.

As an Atheist, I've always felt that the choice in itself is professing a faith. I cannot prove the lack of a deity. The only manner in which I could ever do so would be to become an omniscient/omnipresent being, thereby being what I claim to not believe in.

So making the choice not to believe is doing so on faith. It may not be as structured as the "religious", but no less founded in choosing to make a belief.

 djones520 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity

Alternatively atheists simply don't believe in any 'man in the sky'. Who says it s matter of choice? You don't choose what to believe in, you either believe in something or you don't.

And that of itself is a choice.

More to the point its an actional choice as it involves self identification.
If someone claims to be an atheist they are not professing a lack of a faith, they are professing a choice to not have a faith.
Someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not and doesn't care either way is not an atheist. Also those people critically dont espouse atheist dogma.

As an Atheist, I've always felt that the choice in itself is professing a faith. I cannot prove the lack of a deity. The only manner in which I could ever do so would be to become an omniscient/omnipresent being, thereby being what I claim to not believe in.

So making the choice not to believe is doing so on faith. It may not be as structured as the "religious", but no less founded in choosing to make a belief.

Thank you.
Do you think you have developed an emotional investment in your atheist belief?

 Orlanth wrote:

And that of itself is a choice.

Most certainly not a conscious one and it was one that I made, if indeed I ever did which I doubt, as a child.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

And that of itself is a choice.

Most certainly not a conscious one and it was one that I made, if indeed I ever did which I doubt, as a child.

If it was not a conscious one you wouldn't be posting on this topic.

 Orlanth wrote:

 redleger wrote:


I would be happy to discuss why that is just incorrect on all accounts, but I don't think this thread would be the right place.

It is the right place because when religious violence occurs and a thread is made on th subject an atheist oftimes turns up with is 'solution' of ridding the world of religion.

So I am 'incorrect on all accounts', you sound very sure. Let us see:

 redleger wrote:

I welcome proper discussion on the matter. However Athiest's have no religion. It can not be included.

Atheism is a religious choice, its is a faith system like any other because there is no proof for it like any other.
Atheism is also indistinguishable from any other religious movement, because it has the same societal effects as any other religious movement. Including having proponents who demand they know what is best for everyone, want to abolish alternate world views - on pain of death in many cases, and wish to form a political hegemony based on their collective religious choice - again often with penalties for non-compliance.


Ultimately there is no difference between a Maoist atheist telling Tibetans they must abandon their faith - or die. Or a Daesh extremist telling people to convert to Islam - or die.

 redleger wrote:

Atheism is kind of a misnomer, since it does not fall under a religious banner of any sorts.

And here you make the classic mistake of the zealot. Your faith choice is inherently different to all others.
Now most faith choices contains this to an extent, as most consider themselves special, but usually this is just left to theological application of the 'chosen'; though some pantheonistic beliefs try to accept multiple faith systems under one theology.
The danger is when one faith system is expected to have special social hegemony, and therefore practitioners need not respect any other.


Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity, that is a faith choice no different than choosing any religious belief. You cannot say that because your belief system doesn't include faith in any deity or supernatural system is is therefore culturally superior and is above critique. Tis is the danger of atheist dogma, adherents demand it is seen in separation from other fanatical religious movements, in spite of using similar means for similar ends.

 redleger wrote:

Now zealotry as you describe it by humanists and non-religious people I could agree on, but its zealotry to move the world forward without the chains that hold it back.

Most fanatics think something similar. i.e. When the world is converted to Islam there will be no 'chains holding it back'. i.e. Jihad is moving humanity 'forwards'.

How far are you willing to go to establish your dream?
Thankfully many atheists I speak to on this issue can recognise the mental trap, and dont want to and never intended to be docgtrinally indistinguihablefrom a religious hegemonist.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
A lack of faith or belief in a god is the exact opposite of a religion. In fact there is no church or group for Athiests, they have varying political views and no one "spokesperson" to unite them all. Although Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hutchins were quite vocal they are not our Pope or Cardinals.
So no it is not a religious choice, it a choice of no religion. Because of this, there is no text or doctrine that can be used to twist any one person who is an Athiest into extremism. Athiests don't blow up churches, usually opposing religions do.
While I do not have the solution as you so seem to want to place on me, I know religion is a big factor driving Jihadists. What sort of arguments would those driving this violence use to get ordinary people to blow themselves up other than the promise of an eternal life in a paradise. Further more, would they even be doing it in the first place? I have no solutions, but I am smart enough to see the common thread.

The choice not to believe in a god or any god is solely based on both evidence based decision making, or lack of evidence. Burning bushes spouting orders, and winged horses taking prophets up into the sky do not seem very well grounded in reality. Books written by men with such stories does however very much seem grounded in reality. Its called fiction.Critical thinking is about saying it is ok I don't know why that works, but its not ok to try to explain it with a faith based answer. How does a clock work? Because god makes it work. Nope, try again.

So dark ages preventing societies technological and scientific advancement is a myth. So who first figured out the Earth was round, and then when was that knowledge lost, and then who bet their life on it and then "rediscovered" this fact? The ancient Greeks knew this long before Columbus' voyage. As of him embarking on this journey it was still spouted rhetoric that the earth was flat, and he would fall off the side. In fact had America not existed, his entire crew and himself would have died at sea.

The dark ages did indeed stifle free thinkers, and to say so is to ignore history, unless you only read history from the Cahtolic Libraries, I prefer an approach of varying media to allow multiple views. Few agree that anything other than religion was progressed from the years 500-1000BC. Now sure, a new script of writing was developed during this period, which made putting out books easier, but seeing as how up to that point literacy was rare, it didn't do any good. It took quite some time for education to catch up. OH and guess what the most widely disseminated book was?

As far as how far I would I go, Im there. I educate myself, I am a productive member of society who follows the law and has a very good moral compass. I teach my 3 daughters that there is a need to also follow these principles and I will love them no matter what they do. Even if they run off and join a nunnery, because I know they will make good decision, and critical thinking was instilled in them. My oldest, when she does come out to me and her mother because its only a matter of time now, will receive the same love she always did, and not have any dogma spouted at her about rotting in hell or the like. She is free to be as she was born, and you can't pray the gay away.

Now I know you think wow, what a liberal nut job. But I actually have little respect for liberals of republicans for that matter. Anyone who toes any party line without the ability for left or right movement is not a free thinker. Do I think the Freedom from Religion Foundation has it all right, heck no. but they are the only ones out there making sure we keep church and state separate. Politicians are certainly not doing that. I don't think a prayer at a school football game is harmful or warrants an injunction unless you shun a kid or parent for not following along. Hell you can't go to a military ceremony without some chaplain getting up there and talking about god. I stay quiet, be respectful, then when its done we get down to business.

Until humanity can learn that they can think for themselves, ask the hard questions, and not fear excommunication or beheading because of dogma, then no, we can not as a species, all together move on.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in any deity

Alternatively atheists simply don't believe in any 'man in the sky'. Who says it s matter of choice? You don't choose what to believe in, you either believe in something or you don't.

And that of itself is a choice.

More to the point its an actional choice as it involves self identification.
If someone claims to be an atheist they are not professing a lack of a faith, they are professing a choice to not have a faith.
Someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not and doesn't care either way is not an atheist. Also those people critically dont espouse atheist dogma.

As an Atheist, I've always felt that the choice in itself is professing a faith. I cannot prove the lack of a deity. The only manner in which I could ever do so would be to become an omniscient/omnipresent being, thereby being what I claim to not believe in.

So making the choice not to believe is doing so on faith. It may not be as structured as the "religious", but no less founded in choosing to make a belief.

Sorry bro, but I have to disagree. I was raised a methodist. I choose to not believe, but I can see how if you were not raised religious then you just don't believe and maybe that is not a concious decision until you are old enough to understand the choices you are making. I chose this because 1. I saw the worse mankind can be, and realized no benevolent father would let his children do this to each other, and if he was alive, he would strike me down dead for the carnage I both caused, and took part in causing. 2. I learned that its ok to ask questions, When i did I was constantly being given answers such as "have faith it will all work out." No, No and No. You work for what you have, and you don't look to the sky and wait for something to make it better. As I started a very fierce moral inventory I did some research, and learned that no advancement was made without asking questions, and in many cases failure. I learned that research and evidence are what should drive the decision making process.

The lack of a faith is based on requiring evidence to back up a claim. Faith is accepting a claim without evidence.

 Orlanth wrote:

If it was not a conscious one you wouldn't be posting on this topic.

That makes quite literally no sense.

 Orlanth wrote:

And that of itself is a choice.

More to the point its an actional choice as it involves self identification.
If someone claims to be an atheist they are not professing a lack of a faith, they are professing a choice to not have a faith.
Someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not and doesn't care either way is not an atheist. Also those people critically dont espouse atheist dogma.

There is no evidence of a higher power. Technically that would be agnostic (we, as humans, are quite unsure about a lot of stuff) but atheist works better because agnostic also kinda implies that there is some actual scientific evidence that some god(s) could be real in some way (or that people are working towards proving god(s) somehow).

I am an atheist in the same was I am do not believe in unicorns or that little gnomes steal lose change and socks they find in my room while I sleep. Like, I could chose to believe there is cake in my kitchen but that wouldn't make it true just because I believe in it (I would need to bake that cake or at least look if I have some left over cake I forgot about).

So atheism it is. There is really no choice involved with the lack of evidence, it's just the default state.

Given how far off-topic this has gotten, I think it's fair to say the thread has reached and surpassed its natural conclusion.