God and the Internet: Bad Manners From Otherwise Intelligent People

God has no place on the Internet. All you have to do is come up the most disgusting thought you can, type it into Google, and you will see there is no god here.

I for one am surprised that there are simple minded and selfish people that hate Christians, must resort to name calling, put down other people, and can not share life with others.

But in 2008, they'll be leaving the White House, so no worries.

I for one am surprised that there are simple minded and selfish people that hate Christians, must resort to name calling, put down other people, and can not share life with others.

Who is name calling?

MartinEZ,

Perhaps ComSen was being sarcastic:

ComSen

I for one am surprised that there are simple minded and selfish people that hate Christians, must resort to name calling, put down other people, and can not share life with others.

Right, so it was a subjective experience. It is a shaky foundation for me, sorry.

Lack of faith can also be viewed as subjective. An individual might not want to consider the possibility of divine live when suffering in life is so great. I've found myself in that situation plenty of times.

oops wrong place! These long threads confuse me :/ Will post again where I want to, down there!

Faith has no place in getting smarter.

Neither does arrogance.

Aren't the faithful the most arrogant of us all? Believing you know the truth versus searching for it sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Anyone who stops searching for truth could be considered arrogant, but I fail to see the correlation with faith. Truth isn't a singular item. No matter how much I find, I'll always be searching for more.

Faith has no place in getting smarter.

Really. I guess the monks who sought out to understand the world around them and became catalysts for so much that physical and medical science borrows from them was just silly.

Which physical and medical science is based on faith? Just because a monk does something does not mean they did it out of faith. Plenty of religious people have contributed to the sciences, but their faith is a hindrance rather than a promoter of that contribution.

You're very right Henry VII. Faith is a hindrance to understanding.

Aren't the faithful the most arrogant of us all? Believing you know the truth versus searching for it sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Well, said MartinEZ, the faithful are the ones who are arrogant. There is nothing arrogant about believing in things for which there is evidence. There is something very arrogant about believing in something for which there is no evidence and telling others they are arrogant for not sharing your belief.

I know what it would take to convince me that any particular religion is true. What would it take to convince you, someone, that your beliefs are wrong? If your answer is something like, "Nothing! I know I'm right!" Then you, sir (or madam), are arrogant.

Atheists and agnostics operate very differently from believers. For most of them, they believe what they believe because the evidence supports it or because there is no evidence for the opposing belief. Furthermore, as evidence comes in about how the universe works, most atheists/agnostics update their beliefs to match the evidence. For instance, I used to believe that genetics had little to do with psychology. Now that more evidence is available I believe otherwise. Isn't that open-minded? If my belief about the effect of genetics on psychology was based on faith, well, then it wouldn't matter what the new evidence said would it?

I think this is what Henry VII and MartinEZ were getting at: that faith is a close-minded way of thinking and is a hindrance to learning. Furthermore, it is arrogant to believe you are absolutely right about something for which there is no evidence.

I can't help but smile at your assumption that because I'm a believer I must not have given it much thought or that I ignore evidence. It couldn't be further from the truth. I frustrate my wife, family and co-workers because I refuse to accept pretty much anything at face value. My road to accepting Jesus was long and slow. I understand the skepticism. I lived it for years. I was close-minded... towards faith.

someone, I've assumed nothing about you other than that you are a believer and thus have faith. I had no idea how much thought you've given it nor your stance on ignoring evidence, since you don't necessarily need to ignore evidence to believe in God(s)/Jesus/whatever, you just need to ignore a lack of evidence.

I don't mean to make this excessively personal, but if you "refuse to accept pretty much anything at face value," just what convinced you of Jesus' divinity (assuming of course that by "accepting Jesus" you meant as your personal lord and savior or something to that effect, if you meant something else, please enlighten me)? Was it writings from a 2,000 year old, unsubstantiated, inconclusive, unprovable book? Was it some sort of subjective experience? Was it a peer who convinced you through their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book or their own subjective experience? Or do you actually have some kind of substantial evidence? I don't mean to assume anything by suggesting those things, but I find they are pretty common reasons for belief in various tenets of Christianity. If something else convinced you, please share it with me, for if there is some objective evidence for the divinity of Jesus (and that I need to do anything about it), I imagine I'd change my tune pretty quickly.

However, if it was one of those things that convinced you of whatever it is you believe, I assure you , you are in fact close minded. Those things are subjective, unprovable and unreliable forms of evidence. God(s)/Jesus/whatever may still exist, but He/she/they/it wouldn't exist because some book said so or because a lot of people 'felt' it.

All I'm saying is this: there is no real evidence for the existence of God(s) or the divinity of Jesus or anything supernatural for that matter. It is not close minded to base your beliefs on this. It is, however, close minded to ignore the lack of evidence.

@ Jay Baker, MartinEZ, and Henery VII

ust because a monk does something does not mean they did it out of faith. Plenty of religious people have contributed to the sciences, but their faith is a hindrance rather than a promoter of that contribution.

So, someone trying to prove their faith via science hinders them? No, I disagree. If the monks went about trying to disprove science then I'd agree, but monks helped discover the sciences.

That aside, I was in a recent discussion with several others on a similar topic. I think my responses in that thread were very relevant here. Bear in mind, I'm not promoting any religion or faith. The point I make is that both the faithful and the non-faithful have very flawed arguments when you throw logic into it.

Here.
It's about 80 or so comments long between myself and about 4 others.

If you dont want to read it through, I'll sum it up with my overall point:

However, my ENTIRE point about atheism and the call to the faithful about how God can't exist because there is no proof is basically the argument from incredulity and argument from Ignorance...and I'm sure a abstract variation of epistemic closure (a specific area of epistemology) and relevant alternatives...

Argument from Ignorance

Argument from Ignorance (sometimes Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, from the Latin for "argument (aimed) at ignorance") is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence, frequently in an area where no such evidence can reasonably be expected. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

1. It cannot be shown that P is not true. Therefore, P.

A simple variation on this is

1. It cannot be shown that P is true. Therefore, not-P.

This is a fallacy because the simple fact that no one knows how to contradict a statement does not mean that a statement is true. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

-source

As an example some Atheists say:

There is no proof of God; therefore I do not believe in God.

Argument from Incredulity

Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

1. I can't imagine how P could possibly be false. Therefore, P.

A simple variation on this is

1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true. Therefore, not-P.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

-source

As an example, the faithful will sometimes say:

There is no proof that God doesn't exist; therefore I believe in God.

Even mundane explanations for phenomena can be implausible, and may deserve to be challenged. (Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof, but ordinary claims still require ordinary proof). However, it is a form of False Dichotomy to insist that the lack of immediate mundane explanation implies a supernatural explanation. More to the point, it simply violates common sense to assume that today we know everything about any given aspect of the world that we will ever be able to know.

Claiming that God does in fact exist is an extraordinary claim, and thusly requires extraordinary proof. Because this claim comes from a group who has a platform of positives, the positive must be proven.

Claiming God does not exist is equally extraordinary on the basis of the subject, and also requires equally extraordinary proof. Because the claim comes from a group of people who have a platform of negatives, the negative must be proven....

...Both are flawed on a fundamental level when bringing logic into the equation because neither argument (pro / con God) is truly a logical argument. There is nothing to tangibly support either, so it gets based on perception and perspective are that unique to the individual. The only real answer when asked to evidence either side would be logically say "insufficient data"...

Though it would really take the whole conversation to to fully understand the true context of the quoted text - this is just the gist of it and how rallying around saying that "holy rollers" bother some of you because they're pious and arrogant enough to turn from something tangible is equally a flawed concept.

I don't think I stated any problem with the religious. My problem is faith itself in that it is an open rejection of the search for truth, believing the truth has been found.

More to the point, it simply violates common sense to assume that today we know everything about any given aspect of the world that we will ever be able to know.

This, essentially, validates my claim.

I'm sorry Shawn, but I must disagree with some of your points. Your main point (if I follow you correctly) is correct: since there is no real evidence either way on the existence of God, the most logical position is agnosticism. I agree, that's why I'm agnostic.

However, logic and arrogance are two different things. There is clearly nothing arrogant about not believing in unicorns (something for which there is no evidence), yet somehow it is arrogant to not believe in God? I'm confused.

Let's look at this example: At one time, it was thought that the speed of light was not constant (if you were riding a bike and turned on a flashlight, the light would travel at its speed plus the speed of the bike). This was not an illogical or arrogant belief, there just simply was no evidence to the contrary. Physicists now know this is not true that the speed of light is actually constant (about 186,000 miles per second). Now that there is evidence, we can safely say that the speed of light is constant. This is neither an illogical nor an arrogant belief. If new evidence presents itself that the speed of light isn't constant (or, say, isn't always constant) scientists would likely change their stance.

My point is this: there is nothing illogical or arrogant in basing your beliefs on evidence and not believing in things for which there is no evidence. It is arrogant to be so sure in your beliefs that nothing would convince you otherwise. I can't speak for all believers and atheists, but in my experience it is the atheists who are willing to change theirs beliefs and the believers for whom nothing would convince them. Here's a great link on what it would take to convince me without a doubt of God(s) existence: The Theist's Guide To Converting Atheists.

Jay:

I'd love to tell you God spoke to me in the voice of James Earl Jones and there were 20 witnesses to testify to it. Something tells me even that wouldn't be enough to persuade anyone outside of me and the witnesses.

I can tell you that it wasn't exposure to a "2,000 year old, unsubstantiated, inconclusive, unprovable book" (nice jab :-) or a peer's interpretation of it. Not alone anyway. It wasn't a singular event and it wasn't something I found by demanding evidence (and I did my share of demanding evidence).

Most of my evidence comes from reflection on the events of my life. I began to see how my life was changed for the better through difficult situations. I began to see how certain challenges in my life and those around me prepared me to better deal with future events. I began to feel like my life was part of a bigger plan. Eventually, the sum of my experiences was enough to convince me of a higher authority. I still have doubts. I still continue to search. Faith is not a destination, but it's part of my journey.

I'm sure that sounds ridiculous to you, and that's OK. Even if you could accept my "evidence" as your own, it would be a shaky foundation. Everyone has to take their own journey.

Most of my evidence comes from reflection on the events of my life. I began to see how my life was changed for the better through difficult situations. I began to see how certain challenges in my life and those around me prepared me to better deal with future events. I began to feel like my life was part of a bigger plan. Eventually, the sum of my experiences was enough to convince me of a higher authority. I still have doubts. I still continue to search. Faith is not a destination, but it's part of my journey.

Right, so it was a subjective experience. It is a shaky foundation for me, sorry.

Now my question is this: Are you open to the possibility that perhaps your experience wasn't spiritual but merely coincidental (not to demean its significance in your life, of that I know nothing) or are you closed to that possibility? If that is the case then wouldn't that constitute being close minded ... towards naturalistic explanations?

I don't mean to be rude, I'm simply trying to understand.

More to the point, it simply violates common sense to assume that today we know everything about any given aspect of the world that we will ever be able to know.

This, essentially, validates my claim.

It does, but it also validates the fact that neither the faithful nor the non-faithful have a logical argument against the other. This was the point. Neither side can prove nor disprove the other.

I'm sorry Shawn, but I must disagree with some of your points

Don't be. Fruitful discussion and learning are the results of civil disagreements.

However, logic and arrogance are two different things.

I agree. By definition and in practice they are two different spectrums altogether. I'm sorry if I've lead you to think I was using them synonymously.

What I was getting at, was that the lack of the logic or understanding of the logical fact was arrogant and that arrogance runs down both sides.

I can't speak for all believers and atheists, but in my experience it is the atheists who are willing to change theirs beliefs and the believers for whom nothing would convince them

From where you sit, this may be very true. I however see this slightly differently.

An atheist must first understand the deity in which they choose to not believe in or be so sure that the science they adhere to is so infallible that there is no way faith is an acceptable answer. So, for an atheist to exist they either have to have changed an existing belief or have turned it down with a closed mind prior to exposure to something they've never tried. Atheists might change their beliefs, but they've already got it stuck in their heads that anything presented would be explainable in science because they've discounted faith previously. This to me comes off as very arrogant as well. Now, there are militants and radicals on either side of this fence. Both have their arrogances. I've seen very creepy and radical people of faith, but they do not account for a majority of faithful. At the same time I've met some pretty militant atheists, but again, they are not a majority. What's unfortunate about both groups is that the minority "wierdos" get the most exposure.

Neither side can prove nor disprove the other.

I may not be able to disprove the existence of god, but I can prove that faith itself is flawed. Faith, being the essence of anti-intelligence, can never prove anything. Intelligent thought and well-based beliefs, on the other hand, can.

I may not be able to disprove the existence of god, but I can prove that faith itself is flawed. Faith, being the essence of anti-intelligence, can never prove anything. Intelligent thought and well-based beliefs, on the other hand, can

It's a reinvention of "can't prove a negative". It exposes the flaw of saying "Prove that something does not exist". You can't by default, prove nothing. However the problem here is that The argument uses the tangible physical to discount the intangible meta physical. It's an uneven field, which is also a flaw.

Faith is a system of belief that is not anti-intelligence, but rather anti-knowledge. Even then it's a stretch to say it is anti-knowledge. I would say that it is more... anti- acceptable evidence. To better understand this, we'll have to look a little more on Epsitemology.

I'll have to lump faith and belief together here since Faith to the faithful both surrounds and is the center of their belief system.

Belief

Main article: Belief

Sometimes, when people say that they believe in something, what they mean is that they predict that it will prove to be useful or successful in some sense — perhaps someone might "believe in" his or her favorite football team. This is not the kind of belief usually addressed within epistemology. The kind that is dealt with, as such, is where "to believe something" just means to think that it is true — e.g., to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition, "The sky is blue," is true.

Knowledge implies belief. Consider the statement, "I know P, but I don't believe that P is true." This statement is contradictory. To know P is, among other things, to believe that P is true, i.e. to believe in P. (See the article on Moore's paradox.)

[edit] Truth

Main article: Truth

If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true, but he or she may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. We would not accurately say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.

-source

Tennyson Samraj, a Philosophy professor at Canadian University College, expanded on the idea of Justified True Belief in his book entitled "What is Your Belief Quotient." [6] In this book, Samraj examines the idea of the Justified True Belief as being insufficient in demonstrating "true belief" unless this belief actually leads to a Justified Belief Decision (JBD). If one believes in God (for example) but does not act on this belief, then this belief is not, in fact, much of a belief afterall. If one, however, upon having Justified True Belief in something (such as God) and decides that he or she will make decisions which demonstrate this knowledge, then the belief in God will therefore not only be valid, but also evident.

Knowledge is traditionally defined as justified true belief (JTB). However, Samraj points out that classic epistemology does not make a clear distinction between belief as knowledge and belief as an existential decision. The subject of belief is difficult to define and defend because the truth of what we believe speaks to both ontological and existential concerns.

While belief as an epistemic-ontological matter addresses the truth and falsity of what we believe, belief as an epistemic-existential matter addresses why we choose to believe or choose not to believe what is know. JTB justifies ontological truths while JBD justifies existential truths.Truth or falsity is never a matter of choice however when what is comprehended is purely noetic then a deontic decision for or against what is comprehended must be made for existential reasons.

Samraj shows that when belief is defined as knowledge, it is an ontological matter and we can search for justification as required by the JTB paradigm. However, when belief is defined as a decision, it is an existential matter. Here comprehension implies choice, according to Samraj, and choice demands decision.

Justification for a decision cannot be based upon what is ontological, but only on what is existential - the knowledge of why we choose to believe. Because justification is existential, we should not attempt to verify truths of theism for three reasons, according to Samraj.

* what is believed cannot be verified as true or false because we cannot physically verify the concepts of God--such as immortality
* verification does not negate how self-evident truths are known because physical evidence does not enhance the truth of what we believe.
* verification cannot guarantee belief in God.

Belief as an epistemic-existential matter affirms the decisions related to God, goodness, and eternal life for existential reasons.

Through this analysis, Samraj points out that it is important to examine why people choose to believe in God or why people choose to disbelieve in God, goodness, and eternal life.

-source

Shawn, throwing some terms of philosophy on top of the question, and hoping no one notices the fallacies contained therein simply doesn't suffice as an argument. What do I mean?

Your explanation begs the question: If one, however, upon having Justified True Belief in something (such as God) and decides that he or she will make decisions which demonstrate this knowledge, then the belief in God will therefore not only be valid, but also evident. This simply assumes two conditions for God's existence; that the belief is "Justified" in the epistemological sense, and that the belief is "True".

Additionally, it rests on equivocation: classic epistemology does not make a clear distinction between belief as knowledge and belief as an existential decision. Samraj equivocates knowledge and belief. You can't simply claim that they're the same thing just because people may choose to believe something based on their life experiences-- they could form a justified untrue belief. This would be the opposite of knowledge in the epistemic sense.

The error is simply compounded in Samraj's conclusions. If God cannot be verified, then God has no consequences, and so attempts to verify the claims of theism in regard to God are simply a waste of time. But the existence of God is not the sole claim of theism, and so any other claims of theism must be evaluated separately in terms of whether it is fruitful to attempt to verify them. In his second point as it relates to God, he simply is claiming that God is a self-evident truth. Clearly this is not so. Therefore whether verification negates self-evident truths is inconsequential to the question of the existence of God. His third point is likewise inconsequential. Belief in God is not necessary, and so "necessity" for the belief in God cannot satisfy as a refutation of the purpose of verification.

Finally, in the last paragraph of the quote, although I agree with Samraj, this is simply self contradictory with the thrust of the rest of the argument. If verification of the "truths" of theism should not be attempted, then there is no reason to examine why people choose to believe in God. Examining why would be an "attempt" to verify those "truths."

Whether someone makes a decision based on what they feel is a "justified" belief is inconsequential to whether that belief is actually justified or true.

You're absolutely right that faith is anti-knowledge. And since knowledge is combined of beliefs that are 1) justified and 2) true, we could say that faith is a combination in varying degrees (depending on the faith claim) of both a lack of justification and a lack of truth.

And to your earlier point, Claiming God does not exist is equally extraordinary on the basis of the subject, and also requires equally extraordinary proof. Because the claim comes from a group of people who have a platform of negatives, the negative must be proven....

This is in fact incorrect, provided the claim is provisional. For many atheists, the contention is not an absolute knowledge of the non-existence of God, but the apparent non-existence of God. This non-existence is trivially obvious, and so is no extraordinary claim. As you noted, You can't by default, prove nothing. Shifting the burden of proof to atheists is convenient for theists, but since theists can't show in what way the existence of God has meaningful impact on the physical world, the burden of proof still rests with theists. Atheism is simply another way of saying "God exists" doesn't appear to be true.

This is a different thing altogether from the agnostic claim that "the question of whether God exists is meaningless."

My search for knowledge does not end with my faith. However, moving toward a lack of faith offers nothing above what I already have. Give me valid reasons to change my mind and I'll consider it. (And a new round of pointless debate can begin).

Through observation, I conclude that a majority of Newsviners that lean on science to support their disbelief are not scientists, though most do have a basic understanding of the scientific method, and are experienced in applying logic. Though, if the premise is unprovable ...

So, my question is this: If science is so uncertain about so many things (mostly because of lacking evidence), and the "known" is microscopic compared to an exponentially expanding "unknown", then why and how can a scientist adamantly make claims against the existence of a god?

If, in my limited knowledge of the universe, I were to proclaim, "There is no possibility of God", then, yes, that would seem arrogant. If I were to prove that a product of scientific inquiry was flawed, it wouldn't negate the entire realm of science would it? Science, like faith, has its human limitations and margins for error.

In human thought, a sound argument does not have to be valid, but a valid argument does have to be sound.

Jay:

Right, so it was a subjective experience

I assumed that was a given.

Now my question is this: Are you open to the possibility that perhaps your experience wasn't spiritual but merely coincidental (not to demean its significance in your life, of that I know nothing) or are you closed to that possibility? If that is the case then wouldn't that constitute being close minded ... towards naturalistic explanations?

Technically yes, practically no. :) I'll attempt to explain.

Imagine weighing your experiences on a "spiritual balance" with spiritual evidence (subjective) on one side and skepticism on the other. Because my skepticism was great, the evidence had to be great. Once the scale tips, and you start walking in faith, the skepticism fades and the scale tips further.

As I said earlier, I still have my doubts and I always will. I listen to naturalistic explanations and weigh them on my scale. One day the scale may tip back in the other direction, but for now it has a pretty good lean to it. :)

I don't mean to be rude, I'm simply trying to understand.

I appreciate that.

Faith is neither knowledge nor anti-knowledge but is rather a mode of apprehending knowledge. It is in itself the evidence for what it apprehends and the substance of what has not yet happened. Like the human sciences (such as art, music, and other aesthetics) it fails under the rigors of the scientific method but does so because it, as they, does not inhabit the mechanical sphere. It is a sense--a taste than can be developed through exposure, then through listening and understanding.

I have a question for you all. Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? If so, why?

They have never found his remains. The only proof he existed was the writings of historians. Yet no one questions the fact that he exists. BUT everyone seems to question the Bible and the truth of the Bible. Why is it people do not question history but they question the Bible even though MANY things have been proven to be true that were written in there.

If science is so uncertain about so many things (mostly because of lacking evidence), and the "known" is microscopic compared to an exponentially expanding "unknown", then why and how can a scientist adamantly make claims against the existence of a god? In the same way that believers can adamantly make claims for the existence of God. It doesn't make them right, however. But given the lack of evidence, or the lack of meaningfulness to the question, a provisional and likely answer is to conclude that God doesn't exist. If new data comes in, we might re-evaluate the question.

The default position is skepticism. Scientists can adamantly claim that God doesn't exist to the degree that believers claim he does while basing those claims on testable hypotheses. Going beyond that goes beyond the evidence.

Faith is neither knowledge nor anti-knowledge but is rather a mode of apprehending knowledge. It is in itself the evidence for what it apprehends and the substance of what has not yet happened. Like the human sciences (such as art, music, and other aesthetics) it fails under the rigors of the scientific method but does so because it, as they, does not inhabit the mechanical sphere. It is a sense--a taste than can be developed through exposure, then through listening and understanding. I'd be really interested in hearing you define "knowledge." That I can see, you comment is essentially meaningless jargon. 1) In what way can something be both the mode of apprehending and the thing apprehended? 2) Things that have not happened yet have no substance. 3) In what way do senses not inhabit "the mechanical sphere"? And 4) in what way do art, music or other aesthetics "fail" under "the rigors of the scientific method"? All in all, very poetic but content neutral.

I have a question for you all. Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? If so, why? Convergence of disparate lines of evidence.

everyone seems to question the Bible and the truth of the Bible. Why is it people do not question history but they question the Bible Lack of convergence of disparate lines of evidence.

MANY things have been proven to be true that were written in there. Such as what, exactly?

annasmum - I think someone would be foolish to not question history as it is written. It was written by the winners so obviously the majority of it is going to be skewed and, somewhat, inaccurate.

However, for the majority of major historical figures there seems to be enough, independent, evidence to suggest the person did indeed exist and did, indeed, commit certain deeds. Typically, the evidence for specific people, say Caesar, is gathered from the writings of many, many people.

However, to be totally honest I have a much easier time believing Caesar existed than God because Caesar isn't credited with any supernatural miracles. I believe some guy named Jesus lived and probably was a great public speaker and really focal point for many people. I just don't believe he walked on water or literally turned water into wine. I don't believe he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and I don't believe Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant with him.

I believe Caesar was the ruler of the Roman empire. It's really not much of a stretch to say some guy named Julius was the ruler. It is a plausible event - people have and still do have rulers. Jesus was probably a "ruler" of some sort in the fact that he had gained a following I just don't think he was divine.

someone,

I see, well you have satisfied me that you are not arrogant: you would change your beliefs if new evidence presented itself to you (on your spiritual scale, if I follow you). Along with many other atheists and agnostics, I would also change my beliefs if some new evidence presented itself, although I seem to have higher standards for what is evidence. For me, a subjective experience is never enough to prove anything other than, say, my belief that Pulp Fiction is the greatest movie ever ...

Does that make me arrogant? Does it make other atheists/agnostics arrogant to not believe/doubt the existence of God(s) because there is no evidence for such a phenomenon? If that's the case, a lot of people are rather arrogant for doubting the existence of unicorns ...

Here's my point: there is nothing arrogant about not believing in something for which there is no evidence. If some real evidence presents itself and atheists/agnostics refused to acknowledge it, well, then that would be arrogant, but to my knowledge no such verifiable evidence exists. All we have are the subjective experiences of some people and you'll have to forgive us for not considering your subjective experiences as evidence. Maybe that's enough for you, that's cool, I'm happy for you if your beliefs give you some kind of solace/substantiation/joy/whatever, but there is no way to verify your claim (just as there is no way to verify the claims of, say, someone who had a subjective experience with a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a flying pink unicorn or Bigfoot or Elvis ... you get the idea).

For me, a subjective experience is never enough to prove anything

I understand all too well. Maybe someday you'll have a different perspective. :)

Here's my point: there is nothing arrogant about not believing in something for which there is no evidence.

Agreed. Faith or lack of faith is by itself not arrogant. Disrespecting others based on their faith or lack of faith is.

Glad you thought it was poetic at least, iarnuocon :)
As for my answers, they are as follows: 1. You're really not going to like this one: knowledge--all knowledge--is the self-revelation of the divine. 2. Things that have not happened DO have substance and that substance is faith. Of course this is more a metaphorical way of saying that faith is so certain that it stands in the place of genuine substance of what is to happen. 3. When I say the senses, I don't of course mean the physical senses but a historical sense or sense of aesthetics. Perhaps "mechanical" was the wrong word. 4. When I say this I making a poorly-worded Gadamerian distinction between the spheres of natural and human sciences. When I figure out how to cite sources properly on the Vine, maybe I can put up some of his quotations.

Shawn, throwing some terms of philosophy on top of the question, and hoping no one notices the fallacies contained therein simply doesn't suffice as an argument. What do I mean?

I think you misunderstood. I was just showing those to help you understand my argument that was already there, not make it my argument.

Whether someone makes a decision based on what they feel is a "justified" belief is inconsequential to whether that belief is actually justified or true.

in terms of law, yes I agree. I believe in justified homicide. If Person A kills Person B because Person B killed Person A's wife and child, I'd think Person B got off easy. This however doesn't change the fact a law was broken. For that Person A would stand trial. A jury of Person A's peers would decide if Person A was guilty. We can agree that Person A broke the law. We might not agree that Person A was justified in doing it because that entails subjective thinking. A Jury verdict isn't inconsequential to whether that action or belief is justified, but it is inconsequential to whether or not it is true.

As you noted, You can't by default, prove nothing. Shifting the burden of proof to atheists is convenient for theists, but since theists can't show in what way the existence of God has meaningful impact on the physical world

If by show you mean explain, it's pretty simple. The book of Genesis answers this on a very basic level. If by show you mean prove, then once again - both sides are at a stalemate.

But given the lack of evidence, or the lack of meaningfulness to the question, a provisional and likely answer is to conclude that God doesn't exist. If new data comes in, we might re-evaluate the question.

The question has gobs of meaning, otherwise the debate wouldn't be going strong for centuries. As you point out earlier about theists, it is equally easy for atheists to ask for evidence since on their platform there is nothing to lend itself away from their argument. Almost anything is testable.

Right, so it was a subjective experience. It is a shaky foundation for me, sorry.

Lack of faith can also be viewed as subjective. An individual might not want to consider the possibility of divine live when suffering in life is so great. I've found myself in that situation plenty of times.

My point was that some (not all!) religious people have a tendency to be rude, which is the point of the article.