Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, beds, ventilators and even staff

[Whateverman]

Now that is an interesting statement - one that I would also disagree with. And here is why.

While it makes little difference in terms of whether they believe they are acting at the behest or direction of a God or gods, it is my experience that wrt human interaction, those the make the former (there is no God) are more likely to be hostile to those that do believe there is a God, more likely to be angered by otherwise good and well meaning people that happen to attribute who they are to their belief in God, more likely to be quite caustic when in a conversation with a person that does believe in God. Likewise, my experience is that most that are more in the latter category seem less offended by those that do in fact believe they have a reason to believe there is a God. So I would say that it does make a difference in the behavior of the person in terms of how they interact with the broader majority that does believe there is a God.

But...

You're talking about how an atheist behaves independent of whether gods exist or not. If an atheist is hostile to believers, he's going to be hostile even if gods exist.

Stoic was saying he'd be the same regardless of whether he was a weak or strong atheist; whether he was merely unconvinced, or whether knew no gods exist.

[Stoic]

To summarize your worldview, "Only that which is detectable by the senses exists or can be known to exist,"

No. Something could conceivably be detectable some other way, but I'll believe it when I detect something some other way.

which is logically equivalent to saying, "A supernatural deity does not exist or can not be known to exist."

That would only be logically equivalent if a supernatural deity could not influence what I sense.

If, in fact, a supernatural deity does exist or can be known to exist, then you will be forced to rethink your entire worldview from its foundation up.

Well, I've already allowed that it can be known to exist. If I find out that one does exist, the impact on my worldview will depend on what the deity is like, much more than whether it exists. For example, a deity that exists, but isn't interested in interfering in our lives, wouldn't be much of an addition to my worldview.

You also give the typical "weak" atheist answer that if a god exists then he could make himself known to you in some fashion if he really wanted to, to which I say, what if he already has, but you've rejected it?

It would be a pretty weak deity if it couldn't convince me that it exists, considering how many other things I'm convinced exist.

[Charles]

It's a significant difference with regard to argument, but not with regard to behavior.

If there is a significant difference with regard to the argument there is a significant difference with regard to the behaviour of those making the statements. To only make statements you can support and to not go any further than that is honest. And honesty is important with regard to behaviour.

In each case, you don't have a god telling you how to behave, nor any reason to believe someone who claims to speak for such a god.

However, the idea that God could exist could make a difference for some agnostics (though not all). I think that would go for some of the "Christians" here as well. If they actually believed they would be held accountable by the god they claim to believe in, they would act differently. In many cases those who point to god to justify their "ethics" are often seemingly looking for a miracle solution to justify their dirty deeds.

[Charles]

[...] You also give the typical "weak" atheist answer that if a god exists then he could make himself known to you in some fashion if he really wanted to, to which I say, what if he already has, but you've rejected it?

What if Abracadabra has already made himself and his eternal truth know to you but you rejected it because your "Christianity" is such a convenient justification for actions that Abracadabra has proven for you to be wrong?

[Roy]

As to that, whether or not God created the universe in a literal six days a few thousands years ago, or if he used another process that took billions of years has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my worldview. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is all I really need to know.

Yet you call me ignorant, and describe others as intellectual cowards. You haven't got a worldview, you've got an inside-of-eyelid-view.

No it's not. It's just so central to yours that you cannot imagine how to some-one else it might be on a par with whether Zeus throws lightning.

.. because if the answer to either is "yes", then your entire edifice comes crashing down, which is why intellectual cowards have come up with the "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism" canards.

But the answer is "no", which is why you and your ilk have to come up with flawed 'proofs' and tired arguments so far removed from those used for entities that actually exist that the disparity is obvious.

P.S. Sherlock Holmes was the fictional creation of some-one gullible enough to fall for fake pictures of ectoplasm and fairies. Not a great source of inspiration for seeking the truth about reality. You might as well base your philosophy om the words of The Cat in the Hat.

[rogue06]

Yet you call me ignorant, and describe others as intellectual cowards. You haven't got a worldview

Since when is having a decisive opinion as to how old the planet is an essential to having a worldview?

[Roy]

I think there is a fairly significant difference between "There are no gods" and "I have no good reason to believe their are any gods". The first states as fact that which the person can't know, and therefore becomes a statement of belief. The second expresses what is likely a true statement for them, for their experience, and thus is simply a statement of fact wrt their life experience.

How significant is the difference between "There are no giant purple people eaters" vs "I have no good reason to believe their are any giant purple people eaters"?

[Roy]

Since when is having a decisive opinion as to how old the planet is an essential to having a worldview?

A quote-mine worthy of Henry Morris.

But to answer your question, having a decisive opinion on the age of the earth isn't essential to having a worldview. But MM isn't just undecided, he's refusing to even look. He is a quintessential example of intellectual cowardice.

You can't have a worldview if you refuse to view the world.

[Mountain Man]

It would be a pretty weak deity if it couldn't convince me that it exists, considering how many other things I'm convinced exist.

Yep... typical atheist hubris.

"I expect an all-powerful God to prove himself to me on MY terms, not His!"

As I said, what if you already had access to everything needed to convince a reasonable person that God exists, but you've rejected it? God is not going to force you to accept him, and why should he?

[rogue06]

A quote-mine worthy of Henry Morris.

But to answer your question, having a decisive opinion on the age of the earth isn't essential to having a worldview. But MM isn't just undecided, he's refusing to even look. He is a quintessential example of intellectual cowardice.

You can't have a worldview if you refuse to view the world.

Okay then, let's add the rest of your sentence (bolded)

Yet you call me ignorant, and describe others as intellectual cowards. You haven't got a worldview, you've got an inside-of-eyelid-view.

Please explain exactly how omitting the snarky addition changes the meaning of what you said.

And do you know that he has refused to look or that he simply doesn't feel that he can make an informed decision when he looked.

My point is the same when I've said the following about evolution; that it does not matter a whit whether life appeared suddenly, zapped into existence ex nihilo, or if it arose naturally. That is because either way evolution would still work.

So you can still have a worldview without knowing how or when the world was created. To proclaim otherwise is like saying that nobody had a world view prior to the modern scientific era.

[Mountain Man]

But the answer is "no"...

It is critical to your world view that God does not exist, and since you are definitively declaring that he does not, then you bear the burden of proving his non-existence -- and don't give me any of that "You can't prove a negative nonsense"; for instance, I can irrefutably prove that there is not a leopard sleeping in my bed.

This also means you are committed to accepting all of the nasty implications of atheism, including the fact that in a godless universe, everything that exists is nothing more than an accident of impersonal, unguided natural processes, and that in the grand scheme of things, you are no more significant than an ant, or a microbe, or a rock.

[Charles]

Yep... typical atheist hubris.

"I expect an all-powerful God to prove himself to me on MY terms, not His!"

As I said, what if you already had access to everything needed to convince a reasonable person that God exists, but you've rejected it? God is not going to force you to accept him, and why should he?

I have a feeling you commit the same kind of hubris towards other Gods known in other religions and - this is where it is getting really bad - the possible God who is way behind human level. That god is one that we - by principle - have no possible way of knowing whether exist or not. Seems you rely on hubris and "weak" arguments in thousand and thousand of possible cases.

[Sparko]

How significant is the difference between "There are no giant purple people eaters" vs "I have no good reason to believe their are any giant purple people eaters"?

Obviously, the obvious answer is that you used "their" when you should have used "there"

Grammar Matters!

[Charles]

It is critical to your world view that God does not exist, and since you are definitively declaring that he does not, then you bear the burden of proving his non-existence -- and don't give me any of that "You can't prove a negative nonsense"; for instance, I can irrefutably prove that there is not a leopard sleeping in my bed.

This also means you are committed to accepting all of the nasty implications of atheism, including the fact that in a godless universe, everything that exists is nothing more than an accident of impersonal, unguided natural processes, and that in the grand scheme of things, you are no more significant than an ant, or a microbe, or a rock.

Let's take a look at some of the usual claims about God.

He (we somehow have to call it He though somehow there is no gender) does not exist anywhere, yet he is present everywhere. He is both eternal, exists in time, is the cause of everything, yet somehow always existed himself, he is not visible, not phsysical, supernatural, all knowing and the list goes on.... And the list varies according to different religions, ideas and interpretation.

The main difficulty when answering the question whether God exists starts at the very point when we have to understand what enitity we are even discussing. Your suggestion that this somehow has anything to do with a leopard sleeping in a bed shows a rather limited understanding to say the least. Both of God and thus also of the nature of the discussion we are having (or trying to at least appraoch)

[Mountain Man]

And do you know that he has refused to look or that he simply doesn't feel that he can make an informed decision when he looked.

I think "young earth" creationists and evolutionists both present good arguments, but it's not a subject I've looked into particularly deeply. I know some people are really jazzed about the whole origins science thing, but it's not a topic that cranks my gears because, as Sherlock Holmes famously said, it makes no difference to me whether humans evolved from monkeys or were specially created by God using the dust of the ground, and there are interests in which I choose to invest my time.