Sure, I'd say that most people who claim to reject metaphysics actually espouse the metaphysics of Materialism. — Michael Ossipoff

That sort of misses my point. A philosopher saying he doesn't believe in metaphysics is like a fish saying she doesn't believe in water.

The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

— Starthrower

Why should metaphysics depend on physics, scientific information about this physical universe?

Definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

That sort of misses my point. A philosopher saying he doesn't believe in metaphysics is like a fish saying she doesn't believe in water. — T Clark

Quite so.

Michael Ossipoff

You can't be agnostic. — T Clark

Take the issue of God. I genuinely don't know whether a god exists or not. I don't have a desire for gods to exist and I don't have desire for gods not to exist. I don't think arguments, desires or beliefs have any bearing on whether something exists or not.

I just don't reality is unambiguous enough to form a valid world view/metaphysics.

If someone doesn't believe in gods and if someone only believes the physical exists I want to know how they reached that conclusion. I don't want to have another bog standard dichotomous debate about tired stereotypical positions.

I am an antinatalist and I find discussions about life's problems and morality are flawed or presumptious if you don't scrutinise the issues/ethics surrounding the creation of new life.

Another topic is nationality, Countries and borders. I find the notion of land ownership dubious and I feel trying to resolve conflicts is dubious if you can't justify the underlying assumptions required for the claims made in a debate

There are other options. I, for example, don't believe in gods but rather the creative impulse of the human mind, the physical being but a manifestation of the mind.

In terms of evidence of gods. I think evidence of creation/creativity in human culture and volition, sentience and intelligence raise the possibility of an intelligent sentient volitional creator. If you only look for certain types of evidence or concept is it is going to rule our the possibility of gods. — Andrew4Handel

Dialogue and the dialectic are to me a better ground than 'open-mindedness' as I said in an earlier post. To me this section of this post of yours, for instance, demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness on your part. I am aware that believers in monotheism make the sort of causal link you describe in 'raising the possibility'. Starting from a clean slate, though, what would the case be? Compared to the evolutionary case? It seems pretty thin to me. I'm interested in a third way, that there is some intrinsic meaningfulness in Being, but that doesn't involve 'an intelligent sentient volitional creator' - who, to an atheist like me, is probably just the brain-child of some people in quite a small part of West Asia 2-3000 years ago.

There was no evidence of black swans in Europe but absence of evidence didn't mean evidence of absence. I am not talking about giving equal wait to basic claims but to arguments.Arguments for gods like fine-tuning and first cause do not apply to unicorns etc.

The equivalent evidence arguments would be a paw print in the snow which is indirect evidence. Indirect evidence creates a weaker commitment in my opinion but some atheists seem only to be looking for direct immediate evidence of gods when there are other forms of evidence.

I have not ruled out unicorns but nothing important hinges on their existence. I find the ambiguity of evidence and a lack of knowledge unsettling personality I feel that positions of certainty may be defence mechanisms. — Andrew4Handel

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of god is not obvious. The Bible even states "truly, you are a god who hides himself". If there is a god, where is he, she or it? Some say that the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I disagree. If something is truly non-existent, then the only evidence we could possible have for it's non-existence would be the absence of evidence for it's existence. While the absence of evidence is not proof, it is certainly evidence. If god is obvious, if god does exist and there is evidence for him, then why are we having this debate? We don't debate the existence of gravity, or the existence of our president, or if Saudi Arabia exists as a country. We know these things by evidence. If there is evidence of a god, then why are there unbelievers, why are there atheists? The existence of atheists is evidence that a god does not exist. It is not obvious to us atheists that such a god exists.

Another problem you have is that black swans are easily definable. We both would recognize a black swan if we saw one without ever having seen one before. Now try that with God. God hasn't been defined clearly and we've had 4000 years to do it. How would we know if we experienced God or not? What would be the evidence. Indirect evidence can be skewed to support one's own delusions. This is why you also need direct evidence. Without it, it would be illogical and unreasonable to change one's life or world view based on indirect evidence. I'd rather say, "I don't know." simply because that would be more accurate than to say that I do know that God exists.

That is the problem with most theists. They find it disconcerting to say, "I don't know." That is why they fill the gaps in their knowledge with God. I don't seem to have that fear of the unknown. I actually find the notion that we don't know exhilarating. It leaves room to make discoveries, which is what life is about.

I get the impression from discussions on the internet and reading philosophers that people are not being honest or honest about their biases.

For example, imagine a guns right activist making an argument about the right to bear arms, it is clear that they are going to favour arguments that support their position.You would expect them to select certain lines of evidence and use certain arguments. — Andrew4Handel

It's called having an opinion.

Take the issue of God. I genuinely don't know whether a god exists or not. I don't have a desire for gods to exist and I don't have desire for gods not to exist. I don't think arguments, desires or beliefs have any bearing on whether something exists or not. — Andrew4Handel

I wasn't saying you can't be agnostic about any particular thing, the existence of God for example, only that you can not be agnostic about metaphysics in general. There is no discourse or thought without metaphysics, even if you are not aware of the metaphysical assumptions you have made.

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of god is not obvious. — Harry Hindu

The existence of atoms is not obvious either, they were postulated thousands of years ago by Democritus but proof of the them was given thousands of years later.

The black swan is famous because it was used as a metaphor for impossibility. It shows that however unlikely something seems at the time it may not be impossible.

I think it is problematic to build a world view based on certainty of Gods non existence because there is no way to validate this assumption. I also think basing a world view on Gods existence is flawed, but building a world view on acknowledging a lack of knowledge seems unproblematic.

My issue is that if someones worldview is based on a strong atheism they should make that transparent. it maybe that we can't have discussions because we are never starting from shared premises.

I think the notion of a creator god is non trivial and not simply a superstition. Causal explanations and other explanations are radically effected by the presence or absence of creator deity.

For example you would need to invoke an intelligent creator to explain a computer or car. Evolution is an attempt to explain numerous species without invoking intelligent intervention.

Things like morality and meaning in language and purpose were easier to explain when you invoked a creator who imbued words/symbols with meaning or who gave moral laws or who created things with an innate purpose.

I left a strict religious cult at 17 and from then on I have been a nihilist unable to recreate meaning or coherence to my life. My first question on leaving was "where do morals come from?" because I had had to obey many obscure restrictive moral rules and also "how did reality get here?"

The reason I embrace Mind as First Cause it's because it is right there, within everyone. There is no need to develop or appeal to outside causes such as God, gods, Laws of Nature, or a Big Bang.

It is interesting though that people do attempt to downplay or eliminate their own minds in favor of some active outside force that hypothetical it's guiding them or determining every action. I often wonder why? I can only think that people are more comfortable with outside forces guiding them, a la parents.

Cherry-picking my post doesn't help your argument. When you decide to respond to my whole post, we can continue.

If something is truly non-existent, then the only evidence we could possible have for it's non-existence would be the absence of evidence for it's existence. — Harry Hindu

You could decide something was non existent because it was totally dispensable, or illogical.
You could for example say that a square circle couldn't exist or you could say a law of nature ruled out flying pigs etc. You don't need to believe in a tooth fairy for instance when you know it was a parent that took the tooth.

I think the point at which you could say there was no need for a god, was when everything was causally explained including things like semantics and mental representation and laws of nature etc.

I think explanatory gaps do allow for positing new entities. I just think that some hidden assumptions in philosophers works are insufficiently justified.

The reason I embrace Mind as First Cause it's because it is right there, within everyone. There is no need to develop or appeal to outside causes such as God, gods, Laws of Nature, or a Big Bang.

It is interesting though that people do attempt to downplay or eliminate their own minds in favor of some active outside force that hypothetical it's guiding them or determining every action. I often wonder why? I can only think that people are more comfortable with outside forces guiding them, a la parents. — Rich

What it amounts to is that you're just espousing Anti-Realist metaphysics, as do many of us, including me, ...a metaphysics that is about individual subjective experience, and takes it, and us, as primary.

I describe it as the individual's life-experience possibility-story, which, consisting of inevitable abstract if-then facts, doesn't need any explanation.

I feel that brute-facts or assumptions are to be avoided in metaphysics.

Your positing of Mind as something separate from body is problematic. You've explained it in terms of quantum-field, but that would mean that you're saying that a brute-fact physical world is primary.

Michael Ossipoff

Anti-Realist metaphysics — Michael Ossipoff

There is something real which the Mind observes. Each Mind will necessarily see something different since all is in continuous flux (evolving as duration).

Aggressive public-arguing Atheists tend to be devout believers in the religion of Science-Worship, and in the metaphysics of Materialism (though, according to the vagaries of fashion, they might call it "Naturalism" or even "Nominalism");

But aggressive Atheists have another attribute: They need to compare themselves to someone else, to whom they can claim superiority. That's a common feature of human nature, maybe related to the aggressive chimpanzee heritage.

But, unless they're only talking about Biblical-Literalists (...and if they are, they need to say so), they're criticizing beliefs that they don't know, and can't define. As an Atheist, as you criticizing the belief of every Theist? You don't know every Theist. Did you know that they aren't all Biblical-Literalists?

So, Atheism is a peculiar belief, a belief that is a denial of...something that that belief's adherents don't specify or know.

...as exemplified below:

God hasn't been defined clearly — Harry Hindu

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.

I must admit that I have no idea why you feel a need to evaluate what you don't understand. I know this sounds trite, but it's alright to mind one's own business.

and we've had 4000 years to do it. How would we know if we experienced God or not? What would be the evidence. Indirect evidence can be skewed to support one's own delusions. This is why you also need direct evidence. Without it, it would be illogical and unreasonable to change one's life or world view based on indirect evidence.

Then Harry says:

I'd rather say, "I don't know." simply because that would be more accurate than to say that I do know that God exists.

You would? Then why don't you? That might be less irrational than evaluating what you don't know.

That is the problem with most theists. They find it disconcerting to say, "I don't know."

But you don't know most Theists, though you seem to claim to know enough about them to evaluate them.

Maybe admit that you don't know? ...and maybe concern yourself instead with your own beliefs, investigations, study, etc.

Why this need to evaluate others?

That is why they fill the gaps in their knowledge with God. I don't seem to have that fear of the unknown. I actually find the notion that we don't know exhilarating. It leaves room to make discoveries, which is what life is about.

but that doesn't involve 'an intelligent sentient volitional creator' - who, to an atheist like me, is probably just the brain-child of some people in quite a small part of West Asia 2-3000 years ago. — mcdoodle

Why this need to evaluate others? — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not clear why your post, which ends for some reason with a quote from me, has as its final remark the one above, after you have spent quite a few paragraphs claiming to evaluate others. I don't see how we would have reasoned discussion without commenting on others' evaluations, and responding with evaluations of our own. That's surely what you are doing?

I hope I'm not an 'aggressive atheist'. I usually find myself disagreeing with Harry Hindu about materialist and scientific matters, though we're both atheists. I was educated without any belief in gods or God, and my 69 years haven't brought me any closer to such a belief. But old gits have a tendency to waver on this front when the man with the scythe approaches, so I'm not forecasting my future.

My atheism, looked at in this way, seems more an absence of belief, rather than anything stronger. There isn't a god-shaped hole in my mental universe, which is packed to the brim with thoughts of one kind or another. I do think I have religious feelings, as I presume nearly everyone has, though they may define them differently. I remain eager to understand how others think and feel, though I'm weighted with my 69 years of baggage.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible. We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

You could decide something was non existent because it was totally dispensable, or illogical.
You could for example say that a square circle couldn't exist or you could say a law of nature ruled out flying pigs etc. You don't need to believe in a tooth fairy for instance when you know it was a parent that took the tooth.

I think the point at which you could say there was no need for a god, was when everything was causally explained including things like semantics and mental representation and laws of nature etc.

I think explanatory gaps do allow for positing new entities. I just think that some hidden assumptions in philosophers works are insufficiently justified. — Andrew4Handel

According to your own "black swan argument" there could still be a tooth fairy even though you know the parent took the tooth.

Ever since we started to use science to explain nature and our places in it, the prior religious explanations of weather, crop failure, diseases, etc. have been replaced with better explanations. Science continues to relegate religious explanations. Scientific explanations have provided us much more useful knowledge that we can use to better our lives.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know? — Michael Ossipoff

Let me say again, that I used to be a believer AND I have asked these questions to more believers than I can count because they are my family, most of my friends, and people who I don't really know but engage them on the internet in religious discussions. I have met pretty much every flavor of theist/spiritualist and asked them these questions and it's all the same. They fear questioning their beliefs for fear of being punished, or what happens after they die, or what happened to their loved ones who have passed on. All of you seem to act as if I was born yesterday. For the record, I wasn't. I'm probably older than most of you and have probably asked these questions of more theists than most of you. Theists don't tend to ask these questions of other theists.

If someone can't clearly define something, why would you believe in it?!

The fact is that any definition of God is preposterous and inconsistent. Why could it no be that highly intelligent aliens had a hand in our evolution on this planet, by playing "god"? How do we know that what believers call "God" is really a god? What makes one a god?

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior. — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. Religion isn't about truth. It's about making one feel better in the face of all life's unfairness. Who would you believe more, or who would you say has a better case - the prosecutor that uses evidence and logic to find the criminal, or the prosecutor that uses "impressions"? That is part of my point - that theists use logic and reason for pretty much figuring out everything else, but throw that out the window when contemplating god. Why is that and why the inconsistency?

You're totally wrong about religion not being about convincing or teaching. Proselytizing is part of the religious playbook.

And I'm not the one starting threads attacking theists. They are the ones starting threads questioning atheists and the use of logic itself, as if they never used it and found it useful in finding truths!

But you don't know most Theists, though you seem to claim to know enough about them to evaluate them.

Maybe admit that you don't know? ...and maybe concern yourself instead with your own beliefs, investigations, study, etc.

Why this need to evaluate others? — Michael Ossipoff

Of course I can evaluate them. Like I said, I was one and am surrounded by them. You don't know most atheists and yet you make these blanket accusations, as if you do. Take some your own advice.

And if we should worry ourselves about our own beliefs, then why participate in a philosophy forum. What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - a symptom of being delusional.

I think it's true that there are biases in philosophical debates, and also that this has always been the case and will likely always continue to be the case. A lot of our beliefs depend on how we interpret the perceptual data given to us. It is not the case that we can just open our eyes more and the world will give each and every one of us the exact same thing. So when people disagree about things in philosophy, a lot of the time it has to do with simply a difference in assumed principles and axioms. If you don't agree with my position, you can always just assume different principles and therefore hold a different position, and there's nothing I can really do about that unless your principles are logically incoherent.

Take the skepticism debate. Most people seem to want to preserve or validate scientific knowledge of the world. Why? It's not a rational reason but a desire to see scientific knowledge vindicated. And while later on we might come to a pragmatic conclusion that seems to validate this knowledge, it's fundamentally the values and desires we have that seem to constitute our orientation to philosophical positions. Someone who doesn't care about science as much, or likes to go against the status quo, or whatever, is more likely to adopt a skeptical position about science or epistemology in general.

Someone may object that this may be the case for some people, but others (coincidentally themselves) have the psychological type or drive to pursue truth without any desire for what the truth ends up being. How convenient and question-begging. The idea that philosophers and scientists are somehow pursuing pure and untainted knowledge is a form of magical thinking. Objective knowledge isn't derived from the pure pursuit of it. It comes as a side-effect of a battlegrounds of competing wills-to-power. Positions are held because people like them, and they only let go (if ever!) when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and reasons against it. Hence why people we disagree with seem to not let go of positions even when we think we have conclusively shown it to be false (and they think the same of ours'). A good example of this, I think, is the continual interest in the ontological argument for God. It's been disproven so many times in the past and it still keep cropping up. Some people just don't want to let go of it. They hope one day there will be a form of the ontological argument that actually does work. And maybe they're right, who knows.

You said:
.

I'm not clear why your post, which ends for some reason with a quote from me…

.
I quoted part of your post because, along with Harry’s post, it was what I was replying to.
.

…, has as its final remark the one above , after you have spent quite a few paragraphs claiming to evaluate others.

.
Please note that I didn’t evaluate your beliefs, and I have no inclination or interest in doing so. I was merely evaluating the manners and presumption of aggressive Atheists.
.

I don't see how we would have reasoned discussion without commenting on others' evaluations, and responding with evaluations of our own. That's surely what you are doing?

.
I wasn’t evaluating your beliefs regarding religion. My criticism was of the manners and presumption of aggressive Atheists.
.
My point was that it’s irrational to “evaluate” what you don’t know. Aggressive Atheists want to lump all Theists together, for a blanket criticism of their beliefs. The aggressive Atheist’s One True God is the God of the Biblical-Literalists.
.
If the evaluation and criticism were explicitly limited to Biblical-Literalism, then that would be more rational.
.
Certainly there are certain Theists who are aggressively promoting and pushing their Biblical-Literalism on you, when they go door-to-door, show up at your door, and get rude and bullying. I’d be glad to hear you criticize their rudeness and aggressiveness, and I’d agree.

I don't like aggressive bad-manners from any persuasion.
.

I hope I'm not an 'aggressive atheist'. I usually find myself disagreeing with Harry Hindu about materialist and scientific matters, though we're both atheists. I was educated without any belief in gods or God

.
I was raised Atheist. Later I questioned and eventually abandoned that faith.
.

, and my 69 years haven't brought me any closer to such a belief.

.
…as is your right. I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to believe.
.

My atheism, looked at in this way, seems more an absence of belief, rather than anything stronger.

.
Then you aren’t an Atheist. You’re an Agnostic. It’s very typical now for people to call themselves “Atheist”, while espousing Agnosticism. Nearly always, such “Agnostic Atheists” will soon be making Atheist claims, having evidently forgotten that they’ve just finished expressing an Agnostic position.
.
But when someone claims to know better than Theists, and imply that they’re illogical or irrational to not feel as he does, then he isn’t being very Agnostic. Saying that one knows better is different from saying that one doesn’t know.
.

There isn't a god-shaped hole in my mental universe, which is packed to the brim with thoughts of one kind or another. I do think I have religious feelings

.
Then I’d say you’re religious. You can be religious without showing up on my doorstep and trying to bully me into joining a denomination.
.

…, as I presume nearly everyone has, though they may define them differently. I remain eager to understand how others think and feel

.
Sure, but we just can’t evaluate what we don’t know. And I suggest that, if you want to open a discussion with Theists, you don’t start with premature evaluation. That will likely put them off from talking to you.

You said "...though they may define them differently." Exactly. And that's why one can't validly lump them together for a blanket evaluation.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

.
You replied:
.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

.
Not clearly defined to you. You’re criticizing an action/activity without a definition of what is believed.
.
If someone is promoting a religion or religious denomination to you, then they should define it for you. The door-to-door denominational-promoters do that, of course. But no one else is obligated to.

.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK

.
Believing in something that isn’t clearly defined to you is definitely ok.
.

, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible.

.
It’s irrational to make that claim about beliefs that you don’t even know. ...or to presume to evaluate its defined-ness, merely because you yourself don't have a definition of it.
.

We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

.
You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?
.
Maybe you’re saying that you want to understand other people’s beliefs. If so, you need a better approach.
.
Michael829

You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)? — Michael Ossipoff

Where have I said in my post that theism is undefined? All I have said is that it is perfectly rational to argue that belief in that which is undefined is not sensible. I did not once provide any examples at all of "things which are undefined", let alone presume that 'all of theism' is one such thing.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle. This has happened with literally every theist (bar one professor of theology) that I've ever conversed with.

Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)? — Michael Ossipoff

I do not need to know all of their beliefs to draw conclusions about the beliefs I've so far been exposed to, It is a perfectly normal part of human rational investigation. We draw conclusions about the colour of Swans based on all the swans we've ever seen, we draw conclusions about the movement of objects in space based on all the objects we've ever tested, you are presuming that your communication system will work based on all the people you've ever communicated with.

No-one ever suggests that the person wary of Tigers is being ludicrous because their opinion is only based on all the Tigers they've ever heard of, rather than on all the Tigers that exist.

Harry Hindu says:
.

What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - a symptom of being delusional.

.
I quote that first, because it establishes Harry’s politeness-level, and behavioral-level. …a behavioral-level that’s common among aggressive Science-Worshippers.
.
But I’ll reply to it later in the post, where it occurs.
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.
.
Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

.
Harry replied:
.

Let me say again, that I used to be a believer AND I have asked these questions to more believers than I can count because they are my family, most of my friends, and people who I don't really know but engage them on the internet in religious discussions. I have met pretty much every flavor of theist/spiritualist and asked them these questions and it's all the same. They fear questioning their beliefs for fear of being punished, or what happens after they die, or what happened to their loved ones who have passed on.

.
No doubt that describes the beliefs of Harry, when he was religious, and the beliefs others like him that he refers to.
.
But Harry wants to insult all Theists by implying that they’re like he was.
.

If someone can't clearly define something, why would you believe in it?!

.
If someone is promoting a belief to you, but refuses to define it, then there’s no reason to believe it.
.
In fact, what it would it mean to speak of believing it when you don’t know what it is? :D
.
That would be almost as stupid as criticizing it when you don’t know what it is.
.
Maybe there are Theists who don’t know Harry, and, for some reason, haven’t gotten around to defining their religion to him. :D
.
Evidently Harry lacks the modesty to not presume to evaluate what he doesn’t know.
.

The fact is that any definition of God is preposterous and inconsistent.

.
My, aren’t we authoritative and all-knowing! :D
.
Well, what Harry knows is that his definition of God was preposterous an inconsistent, and likewise his friends’ definition of God.
.

Why could it not be that highly intelligent aliens had a hand in our evolution on this planet, by playing "god"?

.
There are those who believe that. Believe it if you like.
.

How do we know that what believers call "God" is really a god? What makes one a god?

.
Harry doesn’t know what all Theists call “God”. He’s using his former religious self as the poster-child.
.
I’d said:
.

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.

Exactly. Religion isn't about truth. It's about making one feel better in the face of all life's unfairness.

.
Well, Harry can speak for what religion was for him, when he was religious. And maybe for his friends and others with whom he’s talked.

.

Who would you believe more, or who would you say has a better case - the prosecutor that uses evidence and logic to find the criminal, or the prosecutor that uses "impressions"?

.
Evidently Harry thinks that logic describes and governs all of Reality.
.
Evidence?
.
We’re getting ahead of ourselves, Cowboy. Evidence for what? Harry doesn’t know what Theists (other than the one that he was, and his friends, and other dogmatic Biblical-Literalists) believe, much less whether they have evidence for it.
.

That is part of my point - that theists use logic and reason for pretty much figuring out everything else, but throw that out the window when contemplating god. Why is that and why the inconsistency?

.
See above. Harry thinks that logic describes and governs all of Reality.
.
That’s part of Science-Worship, the pseudoscience that tries to apply scientific principles beyond science’s legitimate range of applicability.
.

You're totally wrong about religion not being about convincing or teaching. Proselytizing is part of the religious playbook.

.
…part of Harry’s playbook, when he was religious. But not everyone is like Harry. Oh, his friends are? Ok.

.

And I'm not the one starting threads attacking theists. They are the ones starting threads questioning atheists

.
This thread wasn’t about religion, but it was hijacked to express the usual pseudoscientific Science-Worshipper line, regarding religion.
.
It always sounds the same, word-for-word.
.
Do you all get it from the same hymn-book?
.

and the use of logic itself, as if they never used it and found it useful in finding truths!

.
See above.
.
I’d said:
.

Why this need to evaluate others?

.
Harry says:
.

Of course I can evaluate them. Like I said, I was one and am surrounded by them.

.
I never meant to imply that Harry can’t evaluate himself, his friends, his co-religionists, and other dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, whom he knew and knows very well.
.
But, as I said, he wants to insult all Theists, by claiming that they’re like he was.
.

You don't know most atheists and yet you make these blanket accusations, as if you do. Take some your own advice.

.
But I know what the loud Atheists say, and that they say it from ignorance, with the astounding presumption that they know the beliefs of all Theists.
.
There’s no need to speculate on what the loud Atheist believes—he shares it most willingly. …such as the belief that logic describes and governs all Reality, and his belief about the beliefs of others whom he doesn’t know.
.
Harry says:

And if we should worry ourselves about our own beliefs, then why participate in a philosophy forum.

If Harry wants to participate in a philosophy forum, then it would be better to do so rationally.
.

What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints

.
I merely mention that Harry’s “viewpoints” are unsupported.
.

- a symptom of being delusional.

Namecalling is always the eventual resort, for people who have no better argument or support for what they say.

Loud, irrational forum-participation, usually arrives at namecalling. The pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers are a common example.

Incompetence is commonly associated with namecalling behavior.

By the way, before Harry Hindu became an Atheist, was he (at least in his opinion) a Hindu?

Is (or was) Harry really a (self-declared) Hindu? I’d expect that if Harry shared his opinions with Hindus, he’d be laughed off the stage.

…or is this just the usual log-in-name role-playing?

Michael Ossipoff

According to your own "black swan argument" there could still be a tooth fairy even though you know the parent took the tooth. — Harry Hindu

I was responding to a different argument by you and arguing that alternative causal explanations would count as evidence against gods.
Every time you discovered a parent had taken a tooth from under a pillow that would be evidence that a tooth fairy was not involved there.

However white swans were not evidence against black swans but they were taken to be..... It was a misinterpretation of evidence. It is actually easier to find evidence against a notion of God (ironically?). I think philosophers who invoke science against God are using a smoke screen as if everything counts as evidence for their perspective but without an explicit argument so that it is more liking using white swans as counter evidence..

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable. By causally here I am referring to the deist conception of gods which translates more as a cause, an intelligence, a motive, a reason, law giver and so on.

Personally I don'think the scientific paradigm is adequate to answer every question. It is this rather than the god issue, I am attacking. I also want a world that is more based on uncertainty rather than dogmatism and where uncertainty is acknowledged.

I’d said:
.

You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

.
Where have I said in my post that theism is undefined?
.
Just here:
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

.
You commented:
.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

.
So you were referring to an “act” of believing in something not clearly defined. There was exactly one belief that Harry had alleged wasn’t clearly-defined. That was the topic of that exchange that you were replying to.
.
So you weren’t referring to that? :D
.
You continued on the same subject:
.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible. We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

.
I answered that comment in my previous reply to you. As I said, for something to not be defined to you doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined. …especially when there are diverse completely different “definitions”, and the diversity is so great that it’s presumptuous for you to even think you know what “believe” means in all those varied contexts.
.

All I have said is that it is perfectly rational to argue that belief in that which is undefined is not sensible.

.
You’re repeating yourself. You already said that, and when you did, I pointed out that your not knowing what someone else believes doesn’t make their belief undefined. Did those people, who don’t know you, forget to define their belief to you? :D
.
So, that explains why you attribute to all Theists, the anthropomorphic beliefs expressed by the heavily-proselytizing, promotional, evangelistic Biblical-Literalists—the Theists that you’re familiar with.
.
Overgeneralizing about people is scalled bigotry..
.

I did not once provide any examples at all of "things which are undefined", let alone presume that 'all of theism' is one such thing.

.
As I said, in that discussion, exactly one Harry was claiming undefinedness for exactly one thing, saying that Theist belief, in general, is undefined. That was the topic of that discussion.
.
If you weren’t referring to that, then how odd that you’d post your statement at that point in that discussion.
.
But I’m not going to debate that. That’s enough on that subtopic.
.
But this thread-topic is “Dishonest Philosophy”, and so, in a funny way, your protestation here is appropriate—right on topic :D

.
Pseudonym says:
.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle. This has happened with literally every theist (bar one professor of theology) that I've ever conversed with.

.
…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?
.
….people who uniformly characterize a large and diverse group of people as all Biblical Literalists, or believers in anthropomorphic allegory, identifying all Theists with the more familiar and numerous dogmatic Biblical Literalists.

You know, the ones whose God is your One-True-God.
.
…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined (otherwise how else could you not know them :D )
.
And, though that behavior is common, I don’t usually say anything—It’s so common that there wouldn’t nearly be enough time to always, or even often, answer it. But once in a while, I like to say something.
.
I’d said:
.

Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

.
Pseudonym’s answer:
.

I do not need to know all of their beliefs to draw conclusions about the beliefs I've so far been exposed to

.
Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

Hey, there’s a new idea! :D

You know, evidence-based :D
.

, It is a perfectly normal part of human rational investigation.

.
Yes, and it’s common. It’s called bigotry.
.
“Rational”? Well, maybe not :D Drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve heard about.
.
Well, but what other Atheist activity is there? :D
.

. We draw conclusions about the colour of Swans based on all the swans we've ever seen, we draw conclusions about the movement of objects in space based on all the objects we've ever tested, you are presuming that your communication system will work based on all the people you've ever communicated with.

.
Yes, classical mechanics was written as a generalization from experience. Though reasonably valid and useful under some conditions (like the conditions of the observations from which it was generalized), it turned out to be not generally correct.
.
Yes, overgeneralizing is a common error, and, in its more repellent form, it’s called bigotry.

.

No-one ever suggests that the person wary of Tigers is being ludicrous because their opinion is only based on all the Tigers they've ever heard of, rather than on all the Tigers that exist.

.
The fact that all tigers are primarily carnivores is well-established. Not all tigers are man-eaters, and you’d be wrong if you assumed that they all are. But the mere fact that some of them sometimes are, is a good reason why prudence dictates avoiding them.
.
Likewise sharks and alligators don’t usually attack people. But, because they sometimes do, it’s probably best to not swim with them.
.
It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.
.
Maybe personal pride motivates some people to somehow convince themselves that they understand, and can categorize, everyone.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable — Andrew4Handel

Obviously we should try to explain as much as possible in verbal, discussable terms. Metaphysics is the verbal discussion-topic that takes verbal description to its limit of validity.

I don't use the name "God", except when answering others who do. (Here, they're overwhelmingly Atheists). When I say God, without quotes, I'm referring to the God referred to by people who more or less agree with me.

But when people who more or less agree with me use the name "God", the God that they're referring to isn't an element of metaphysics. And, to say that the God they're referring to is a "being", would be anthropormophic.

There's no reason to believe that logic, physics or metaphysics describes or governs all of Reality.

The devoted belief that science and logic are all-encompassing and universally applicable is a presumptuous article of faith of the usual typical pseudoscientist Atheist.

By the way, the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic.

Michael Ossipoff