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.

English Assassin wrote:Because it suits the "well, evolution is just a theory" fundamentalists to characterise a scientific worldview as "just another belief", and thus to avoid mentioning the unpalatable truth that it is one founded in conclusions rationally drawn from empirical fact, rather than one founded in bronze age myth.

It's a classic example of a false analogy.

Aaaaand /thread.

dæl wrote:The problem comes when you ascribe that to atheists, how can there be an atheist fundamentalist?

Not to keep beating the dead dictators horse but, Stalinism? If one chooses to define religion as Gakmar described (which I think is as valid a definition as any other) then an atheist funamentalist is simply an atheist seeking to institutionalize atheism (that of course becomes problematic, as one has to deal with the nuance difference between atheism and secularism, assuming there is one). The Communist Party (in the USSR and in China) did this. Hitler planned to eventually do it in Germany, and Fascist Italy wished they could do it.

It's a position that can't strictly exist, how can one adhere to a theological doctrine that doesn't exist.

If its really just a discussion of what is and is not a religion, then why do theists keep making the claim that atheism is a religion? As no atheists are making the claim that it is.

This is valid if one believes theological doctrines necessary to a Religion. Some sects of Buddhism have no doctrines, and essentially are atheist in their beliefs. This is really kind of an odd debate when one thinks of it. The religious want to claim every human is inherently religious, so they choose to define 'religion' in a manner that allows them to achieve that end. Atheists meanwhile, dislike the religious or the idea of religion, and define it in a manner that allows them to exclude themselves from it.

At the end of the day its a debate no one wins.

So what makes a religion a religion then?

LordofHats wrote:

dæl wrote:The problem comes when you ascribe that to atheists, how can there be an atheist fundamentalist?

Not to keep beating the dead dictators horse but, Stalinism? If one chooses to define religion as Gakmar described (which I think is as valid a definition as any other) then an atheist funamentalist is simply an atheist seeking to institutionalize atheism (that of course becomes problematic, as one has to deal with the nuance difference between atheism and secularism, assuming there is one). The Communist Party (in the USSR and in China) did this. Hitler planned to eventually do it in Germany, and Fascist Italy wished they could do it.

This is valid if one believes theological doctrines necessary to a Religion. Some sects of Buddhism have no doctrines, and essentially are atheist in their beliefs. This is really kind of an odd debate when one thinks of it. The religious want to claim every human is inherently religious, so they choose to define 'religion' in a manner that allows them to achieve that end. Atheists meanwhile, dislike the religious or the idea of religion, and define it in a manner that allows them to exclude themselves from it.

At the end of the day its a debate no one wins.

Communism is a political ideal, not a theological one, so Stalinists weren't atheist fundamentalists, they were communist fundamentalists. Someone's religion does not define their every action.

Well theism is a belief in a deity, Buddism doesn't have a deity, so can quite accurately be described as atheist.
It does however have the teachings of Buddha as a form of doctrine, so can also be described as a religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:So what makes a religion a religion then?

Belief in a deity is what I would say, and yes that does preclude Buddhism, Taoism etc.

purplefood wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

purplefood wrote:Technically atheism is a religious belief...

NO, technically atheism is having no belief in god.

It's believing that no God or higher power exists.
It's a religious belief albeit in terms of denial.
So it's technically a religious belief.
I wouldn't call it a religion though...

Its just a belief, nothing religious about it.

religious:
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2.imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3.scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4.pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5.appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.

Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.


Atheists have no set of beliefs or practices concerning anything save one. they just don't believe in a god, or have never heard of a god. ergo while a belief, not a religious belief. Why is it so hard for religious people to accept not every belief is a religion? or is not believing in santa claus the major religion in the US?

sirlynchmob wrote:

purplefood wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

purplefood wrote:Technically atheism is a religious belief...

NO, technically atheism is having no belief in god.

It's believing that no God or higher power exists.
It's a religious belief albeit in terms of denial.
So it's technically a religious belief.
I wouldn't call it a religion though...

Its just a belief, nothing religious about it.

religious:
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2.imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3.scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4.pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5.appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.

I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...

LordofHats wrote:

Grakmar wrote:If you define religion as "how do you define humanity's connection with the universe", then atheism is absolutely a religion.

But, really, this is all just semantics and doesn't really matter.

And when one strives to explain the universe with evidence and reason, it's called science.

LordofHats wrote:This. There is no grand conspiracy by the religious to make evolutionary theory a religious idea so they can ban it. Take off those tin foil hats they look silly without streamers. At the end of the day most people define 'religion' however they please, and the irony of that is that atheism can be described as the anti-religion religion if one so chooses to think of it that way.

There are, however, well-publicised, ongoing efforts by anti-scientific evangelical (or fundamentalist, if you prefer) Christians to use just that argument to have myth taught in our schools as though it enjoyed the same evidential basis as established science.

dæl wrote:Communism is a political ideal,

Communism is but a whole where as I'm talking about a part. Communism created (or tried to create) an atheist society and attempted to institutionalized atheism. In this sense, communism can be seen as fundamentally atheist in its attitudes toward religion.

Someone's religion does not define their every action.

Neither does their political affiliation... Hell, taking kick backs isn't exactly in line with the communist party line, but they tended to do it anyway.

Well theism is a belief in a deity, Buddism doesn't have a deity, so can quite accurately be described as atheist.

Most theologists will disagree that a deity is required for a religion. Usually the requirement is some form of belief in metaphysical concepts about the universe, with beliefs pertaining to the human condition and its place in the universe as a runner up (this one would include atheism possibly as a religion under its banner).

Atheists have no set of beliefs or practices concerning anything save one.

Some theologians have theorized that the atheist dogma is Humanism. Of course, this is also a mixing of actual theologists and sociologists who are trying to create a more inclusive means of describing belief systems that behave 'like religion' but that aren't religion (in their book).

So what makes a religion a religion then?

The theologists will get back to us... someday... eventually... maybe.

Its one of those things that doesn't really have an answer. Hence, this thread.

purplefood wrote:
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...

but when you get to what is a religion

"Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "


That in no way has anything to do with atheists. no beliefs on the cause ..., no devotions nor rituals, nor moral codes. its just simple not a theist if you want to get Etymological with it. theists believe in a god, atheists do not.

unmercifulconker wrote:

curran12 wrote:Well, the loud atheists whine and play victim in the same tone of the nonsense that loud religious peomle do. All the same stuff.

Bang on!

Religious fanatics preach their belief that their god is the true god.

Atheist fanatics preach their belief that there is no god.

Both groups are ignorant, enjoy.

Except one of them is right. They can't all be right, but one of them must be. My vote is witb the atheists. And if I am reincarnated before god himself, I'm bellowing "What is your excuse?!" and punching him in the face.

sirlynchmob wrote:

purplefood wrote:
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...

but when you get to what is a religion

"Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "


That in no way has anything to do with atheists. no beliefs on the cause ..., no devotions nor rituals, nor moral codes. its just simple not a theist if you want to get Etymological with it. theists believe in a god, atheists do not.

It says 'usually' and 'often' not 'has to'.
Atheists believe it wasn't a supernatural force (God) which is a belief concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe...
It's a pedantic point of view but the argument is there...

IMO, true Athesim is not a religion because they claim to not have a belief in a higher power. Thussly would not be protected under freedom of religion.

Frankly, the whole idea is one big gamble as I shall no demonstrate.


There are only 2 possabilities here, with distinct consequences of believing or not. Either God exists or he doesn't.

If you believe in God, and he exists. You get to go to Heaven when you die.

If you belive in God, and he doesn't exist. You live and you die. Nothing else. Not so bad, heaven would be nicer though.


If you don't belive if God, and he does exist. You get sent to Hell. Definitly bad.

If you don't belive in God, and he doesn't exist. Nothing happens. You live and then you die.



Frankly, Atheists are taking one big dice roll with the universe. Logically speaking, you should cover your bases. Are you willing to risk Eternal Damnation? What do you get in return, not much.

LordofHats wrote:

dæl wrote:Communism is a political ideal,

Communism is but a whole where as I'm talking about a part. Communism created (or tried to create) an atheist society and attempted to institutionalized atheism. In this sense, communism can be seen as fundamentally atheist in its attitudes toward religion.

Someone's religion does not define their every action.

Neither does their political affiliation... Hell, taking kick backs isn't exactly in line with the communist party line, but they tended to do it anyway.

Communism came from the Marx idea that religion is the opiate of the masses, it seeked to remove it as a form of social control, that is it's only interaction with religion. Stalin inherited communist Russia from Lenin, who I note, doesn't get mentioned in these things because he's not as scary. He acted the way he did because he was a tyrant, not because he was an atheist tyrant. After all, I'm sure there have been far more religious tyrants, than non religious ones.

If god would send people to hell for not believing in him when he's given us no reliable evidence of his existence, then god is a self-entitled prick.

Squigsquasher wrote:If god would send people to hell for not believing in him when he's given us no reliable evidence of his existence, then god is a self-entitled prick.

Have you read the first four commandments?

Squigsquasher wrote:If god makes me face the consequences of my actions because I ignored what he said to do, then god is a self-entitled prick.

fixed that for you

purplefood wrote:religious:
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
I'm just saying the argument could be made that Atheism, being the literal flipside of theism, is simply another form of belief...

Atheism is simply the 'belief' that all conclusions should be drawn from empirically tested fact.

The by-product of which is that god (and all other religions) falls into the same category as the Easter Bunny.

It's not about some nebulous concept of 'belief' in a god or not. Atheists would be happy to believe in god, if you could prove to us why we should.

And that's why we can seem 'evangelical' about it: Because we see people drawing incorrect conclusions due to a either a lack of information or willful ignorance, and that makes us sad and frustrated.

Except he hasn't said anything to me. I can't do as he says if he hasn't said anything to me.

Plus, judging by what's in his atrocious book and the way he treats humanity, even if he was telling me what to do, I wouldn't obey, as I have common decency.

Ok. I will try a definitive answer:

ATHEISM NEED NOT BE A RELIGION, BUT IT IS A FAITH CHOICE.

I cannot say isn't because to some their Atheism is a form of religion in the way it fills the faith hole in their lives with fervour. After all religion and faith are not the same thing.

Pouint is, the only way you can be atheist and not in any way having made a faith choice is if you are completely ignorant of the concept or religion. On a practical level that doesn't happen, because of our nature to question there are arguments that it can never happen, if if you raised someone in isolation and gave them no reference to religion in any form. It is in our nature to believe and disbelieve according to our will and personality.

Its wrong to say that Atheists are religious but it is entirely right to say Atheism is a religion because the two concepts are different. Individual atheists are live individual theists, some are fervid, others don't care. However Atheism as a movement or concept has an agenda, the propagation of the belief in the non-existence of the divine. Like with religion this can be done the nice way or the not so nice way.

However this must be remembered as being a political definition rather than a logical/philosophical one because Atheism is a political concept rather than a philosophical one. Let me explain. Individuals may be Atheist due to their own philosophy, but atherism as a whole is a human mass movement, and thus a political one. The same can be said of any other large scale faith group.
It is important that this is understood so that when it comes to human interaction and human politics Atheism is lumped in with all the other religious choices.

This is to avoid the following human problems:

An atheist argument is a scientific argument.. Probably the most dangerous long term. For example a lot of forums have a no-politics, no-religion rule. Atheists can think that this gives them carte blanche to promote atheism on the grounds that is is 'scientific' and 'reason'. Even major public figure atheists who ought to know better use this argument. Atheism must be categorised as a religious group or atheism will seek to publically condemn religion where the religious have no right of reply.

Atheism isn't a belief of lack, its a lack of belief. Poppycock. Atheism is a human definition, people choose to account themselves as atheists. The reason, they tick 'no' to the "do you believe?" box. some might argue that they are an unfirm no based on lack of evidence. This is irrelevant, do you believe is a straight yes/no question. An unsure is either a yes or no depending on where your heart is pointing. Whether someone says no because of lack of evidence or because of a firm belief in the non-existence of the divine is still a no. After all those who answer yes come in many different categories and they are all lumped together.There is nothing in science to disprove God, it always comes down to a faith choice. For any reason whatsoever you either believe or you don't. The one exception being explained above, those who never consider the question.

Atheism has a pure logic base. This is especially important as it helps us all deal with a commonly placed mental trap, the idea that atheism is a cerebral concept. It isn't, its a faith concept and like other faith concepts its an affair of the heart not of the cool reasoning mind. If this is grasped we will all get on better. All forms of religious argument are conscience based, and are thus ruled by human emotion. By claiming that one isn't gives free reign for the darker human emotions to be disguised as logic. This was the problem with medieval Christianity, modern fundamentalist Islam and many in modern atheism. All three believed in the logical priority of their thoughts, the medieval church was 'infallible', the modern Islamist is 'literal' and the modern atheist can be 'logical'. All are mental traps that actually.
We are creatures of emotion, we act on impulse not logic as a species and as individuals. The only way to embrace logic is to embrace your own nature and thus become truly aware of ones own bias. One of the surest ways to be governed by ones own darker emotions is to deny their power and live under the illusion that one is entirely logical in ones outlook. Never underestimate the human ability for self deception, that is a warning to us all and one those who wish to be truly logical must constantly remain aware of.

Grey Templar wrote:
Frankly, Atheists are taking one big dice roll with the universe. Logically speaking, you should cover your bases. Are you willing to risk Eternal Damnation? What do you get in return, not much.

That's the problem for me though, and I suspect even for a lot of "Christians". Faith isn't a switch you can flip on and off. You can't just "cover your bases".

I DON'T believe. I can't make myself have faith. I've tried. I've even had very compelling motivators for which I've really, really wanted to just be able to snap my fingers and be a good little theist. It doesn't work that way, and, in my mind, no amount of towing the party line would make a difference when standing before God to be judged. If he doesn't know when you're pulling his leg, he's not much of a god, right?

So I do the easiest thing for myself, and I just be sincere. I may suffer the same outcome, but hey, at least I can respect myself for doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
I cannot say isn't because to some their Atheism is a form of religion in the way it fills the faith hole in their lives with fervour.

Does that make GW Bashing a faith choice also?

dæl wrote:Communism came from the Marx idea that religion is the opiate of the masses, it seeked to remove it as a form of social control, that is it's only interaction with religion.

Most social historians reject the idea of Communism being 'religionless' as anything more than rhetoric. All communist states (the two bigs ones anyway) have ever done is replace traditional religion with the 'Communist dogma' and then proceeded to act in a manner akin to a religious institution. Communism was an atheist system that became the religion of the USSR in this sense.

The wall we're currently hitting is the result of atheism being inherently anti-religion (and atheists tend to be anti-religious themselves). Unfortunately, in a push to categorize human behaviors for the identification of patterns across social groups and history, it becomes extremely practical to treat atheism as a (airquotes) religion. Theologians themselves seem to be gradually going the same way in thinking of atheism as the anti-religion religion.

Of course that makes sense to me because atheism has expanded itself far beyond its original premise that of simply rejecting the existence of a 'one true god' into being something much broader. But then I also love irony, and there's nothing more ironic than atheism being considered a religion. Sweet delicious irony.

After all, I'm sure there have been far more religious tyrants, than non religious ones.

Well obviously. Atheism hasn't been around that long as a widely held belief.

d-usa wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:If god makes me face the consequences of my actions because I ignored what he said to do, then god is a self-entitled prick.

fixed that for you

And the most important thing He said to do is worship Him. You can live a good life treating everyone well but still go to hell for not worshipping Him, while you can get away with all sorts of horrendous behaviour and still go to heaven if you repent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Well obviously. Atheism hasn't been around that long as a widely held belief.

I would say even now, if you look at every tyrant at large today, i'll bet the majority are either religious themselves, or use religion as a tool against their populous.

dæl wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:If god makes me face the consequences of my actions because I ignored what he said to do, then god is a self-entitled prick.

fixed that for you

And the most important thing He said to do is worship Him.

Yeah, but here is where the atheist part of it comes in:

1 - Some old guy wrote that commandment.

2 - A god told someone that commandment.

If one wishes to assert the outlandish second hypothesis, one must provide some very convincing evidence. No one ever has.

So basically: Citation needed.

As my Middle East professor once said:

A king took over a city, and the next day the Imams showed up in shiny new robes and presented a Hadith that read "This new king guy is Alah's favorite. Do what he says."

Grey Templar wrote:IMO, true Athesim is not a religion because they claim to not have a belief in a higher power. Thussly would not be protected under freedom of religion.

Frankly, the whole idea is one big gamble as I shall no demonstrate.


There are only 2 possabilities here, with distinct consequences of believing or not. Either God exists or he doesn't.

If you believe in God, and he exists. You get to go to Heaven when you die.

If you belive in God, and he doesn't exist. You live and you die. Nothing else. Not so bad, heaven would be nicer though.


If you don't belive if God, and he does exist. You get sent to Hell. Definitly bad.

If you don't belive in God, and he doesn't exist. Nothing happens. You live and then you die.



Frankly, Atheists are taking one big dice roll with the universe. Logically speaking, you should cover your bases. Are you willing to risk Eternal Damnation? What do you get in return, not much.

Pascal's wager:

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, note 233):
"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. (It's not optional.)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.

But they are never good enough.

Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of a God, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that God exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision.

Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.

I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".

(Disclaimer: I am 100% certain that God exists and created everything. I also believe in evolution and science. Shocking, but apparently you can believe both.)

Pascals wager.

Would a 'God' (Jesus, Zeus, Appolo, ETC) not be able to tell you only belived in he, she, because you were scarred you where wrong and did not really believe? If not, God must be gullible.

One, of many, refutation of Pascal's Wager.

The argument (call it "PW") may be formulated as follows:

(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated.

(b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life.

(c) If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much.

(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists.

(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief.

(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.

Here are some objections to PW:

1. It is possible to prove that God does not exist. [See the atheism section of the Secular Web.] Hence, premises (a) & (b) of PW are moot or irrelevant.

2. There is no good reason to believe PW's premise (a), and there are many theists who would deny it. Furthermore, if that premise were true, then that would provide a basis for the Argument from Nonbelief, which is a strong argument for God's nonexistence. Thus, the given premise is weak and conceptually problematic.

3. According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.

4. Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.

5. It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.

6. To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.

7. Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.

For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected.

blood reaper wrote:If not, God must be gullible.

Look at Job. God IS gullible.

I once had a really long debate with an otherwise intelligent guy who had converted to Islam late in life. He maintained he had done his research, and that Islam was the only religion that had empirical evidence to back up it's claims. When pressed, his comments basically boiled down to "Well, there was this magic book..."

d-usa wrote:Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.

Look, atheists aren't evil anti-god evangelists. We'd be happy to believe in god if you can show us why we should. The problem is, despite your assertions, you just don't have the evidence. You've got lots of people that claim to have seen or felt their god, but why should we believe them?

At the end of the day, it all boils down to "citation needed"