Ask the non-member of all churches AKA Interrogate the atheist — Page 4

RicOlie_2 said:

I think the burden of proof would be dependent, not on location, but on who made the claim. For instance, if this Muslim declared to his colleague that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet," he would have to back himself up. If he overheard a conversation between two atheists who were expressing their disbelief in God, and he wanted to contest that point, the onus would be on him to support his theistic worldview, despite the assertion that there is no God having been made by others, since he would be challenging the claim.

In the first instance, he made the claim, and accordingly, he needed to back it up. In the second instance, he also made a claim that a previous assertion was false. Had the original party asserted that the holocaust had never happened--there simply wasn't any evidence for it--and he had disputed it, the onus would still have been on him to show that they were wrong, since it was he who intruded on the conversation to add his input. The burden of proof could easily shift, however. For instance, if the Muslim man showed a photograph of the aftermath of a gas chamber, with a Nazi flag visible in the photo, and one of the holocaust-deniers said it was photoshopped, the latter would have to support his claim.

The reason I think the minority position has the burden of proof by default is because it is they who are asserting that most people are wrong in a particular area. If they want anyone to pay any attention, they have to make their case. If a member of the majority disputes one of the reasons given by the minority for holding their position, the onus shifts to the member of the majority to back up their reason for disagreeing on a particular point, and so forth.

These are fine and clear points and I thank you for them. Three things more must be inquired upon if not too great a burden...

If a theist and an atheist might be the sole occupants of the International Space Station, during a global devastation that is assumed to eliminate the remainder of mankind. The theist is prepared to claim the event as a retribution from God whilst the atheist is about to blame the cause of the conflict on religion. Is the burden of proof upon the one who might first speak? Supposing it is the theist who speaks first, but the atheist does not at first hear. Then supposing the atheist speaks, thinking he is first. Must they both bear then the burden of proof?

Supposing still further that the atheist might be deaf and unable to hear the theist whilst the theist might be able to understand neither the signing nor the written word of the atheist. To whom might belong the burden of proof in such an instance?

Finally, supposing a woman might be put on trial as a witch. Allowing that it may be agreed that the burden of proof must needs be with her accusers, supposing said burden is one with which the community is in accord and all have agreed has been readily provided both in visible fact and by testimonial witness. Supposing all willingly recognize this evidence save the accused. Is the burden of disproof now at her feet as a member of the minority?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think the burden of proof would be dependent, not on location, but on who made the claim. For instance, if this Muslim declared to his colleague that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet," he would have to back himself up. If he overheard a conversation between two atheists who were expressing their disbelief in God, and he wanted to contest that point, the onus would be on him to support his theistic worldview, despite the assertion that there is no God having been made by others, since he would be challenging the claim.

In the first instance, he made the claim, and accordingly, he needed to back it up. In the second instance, he also made a claim that a previous assertion was false. Had the original party asserted that the holocaust had never happened--there simply wasn't any evidence for it--and he had disputed it, the onus would still have been on him to show that they were wrong, since it was he who intruded on the conversation to add his input. The burden of proof could easily shift, however. For instance, if the Muslim man showed a photograph of the aftermath of a gas chamber, with a Nazi flag visible in the photo, and one of the holocaust-deniers said it was photoshopped, the latter would have to support his claim.

The reason I think the minority position has the burden of proof by default is because it is they who are asserting that most people are wrong in a particular area. If they want anyone to pay any attention, they have to make their case. If a member of the majority disputes one of the reasons given by the minority for holding their position, the onus shifts to the member of the majority to back up their reason for disagreeing on a particular point, and so forth.

These are fine and clear points and I thank you for them. Three things more must be inquired upon if not too great a burden...

If a theist and an atheist might be the sole occupants of the International Space Station, during a global devastation that is assumed to eliminate the remainder of mankind. The theist is prepared to claim the event as a retribution from God whilst the atheist is about to blame the cause of the conflict on religion. Is the burden of proof upon the one who might first speak? Supposing it is the theist who speaks first, but the atheist does not at first hear. Then supposing the atheist speaks, thinking he is first. Must they both bear then the burden of proof?

In this case, two separate claims are being made. Thus, both bear the burden of proof. If, when our hypothetical theist claims the event is retribution from God, the atheist asserts that the theist is wrong, the onus is now on the atheist to prove the theist wrong.

Supposing still further that the atheist might be deaf and unable to hear the theist whilst the theist might be able to understand neither the signing nor the written word of the atheist. To whom might belong the burden of proof in such an instance?

Either the burden of proof would function no differently than otherwise, or, due to the difficulty of communication, the pair ought to stop arguing, seeing as they have the rest of their lives to live in solitude and would do better trying to get along.

Finally, supposing a woman might be put on trial as a witch. Allowing that it may be agreed that the burden of proof must needs be with her accusers, supposing said burden is one with which the community is in accord and all have agreed has been readily provided both in visible fact and by testimonial witness. Supposing all willingly recognize this evidence save the accused. Is the burden of disproof now at her feet as a member of the minority?

 In this scenario, the legal burden of proof, rather than the philosophical one, would be deferred to. The burden of proof would naturally fall to her, however, since she has no way of saving herself if she places it on her accusers, who would not feel obligated to prove anything when there was no disagreement save among the accused.

 One last instance...supposing an individual should make a claim that elves in a boulder saved his life. Further, let us assume that he is to exist in a community in which such a thing is considered commonplace.

http://wlw3.com/thoughts/2012/05/icelandic-politician-relocates-home-of-elves-who-saved-his-life.html

Now supposing he has hired you to move this boulder, but in so doing he claims you have damaged the elfin home and now must suffer a consequence. Upon whom should rest the burden of proof in the existence or non existence of such elves?

RicOlie_2 said:

I think I would get the burden of proof, if I challenged his claim...showing that there is no evidence for his claim would be my first step. I'd obtain some explosives and blow up his rock to show that it was empty of elves, and if there were indeed elves, I would probably run and get back to Canada before the authorities apprehended me.

Should elves be discovered within the rock, surely an explosive device of this magnitude must needs have obliterated them. If so, how many portions of elf recovered might be necessary to prove the existence of the whole? To clarify: would you have become an elfin believer with the mere discovery of a remaining toe, or must it be recovered along with a complete, frowning expression of clearly elfin origin?

Further, if said elves might be shown to be mortal, would this evidence constitute a scientific discovery or merely provide a footnote that the supernatural may be destroyed with well-placed TNT? If so, might it be assumed that all beings of supernatural origin might equally be so susceptible? If so, might this potentially explain the vastly inferior number of sightings of the supernatural since the advent of such explosives?

Alternately, is it your view that they would have remained immune to such corporal division due to their supernatural origin? If so, might it have been wise or unwise to have destroyed their home?

RicOlie_2 said:

Being that I started out with the presumption that elves did not exist, I would not have expected any in the first place. Any splattered blood and flying body parts originating from the rock would be suspect, and I doubt I would stay around to have DNA confirmation that these were elves. If these elves were of supernatural or non-corporeal nature, and were not affected by the explosives, I would perhaps try to make amends before fleeing.

 Fair enough...

Noting that you do not believe in God, would you nonetheless prefer that a God might exist? Or are you quite pleased with the prospect that one may not?

Post Praetorian said:

In your opinion, might the world be improved or impoverished by a general reduction of religious views?

 I don't mind people believing that myths and legends are true, what I mind is those peoples pushing religious non-sense into state laws, education programs, science class, etc. In that sense I could say that world can improve not with a reduction of the religious views ''per se'' but with a reduction of the presence or religious views in public domain affairs like health, education, social equality, human rights, etc. If someone wants to pray, go to church or other religious activity I respect that.

dclarkg said:

Post Praetorian said:

In your opinion, might the world be improved or impoverished by a general reduction of religious views?

 I don't mind people believing that myths and legends are true, what I mind is those peoples pushing religious non-sense into state laws, education programs, science class, etc. In that sense I could say that world can improve not with a reduction of the religious views ''per se'' but with a reduction of the presence or religious views in public domain affairs like health, education, social equality, human rights, etc. If someone wants to pray, go to church or other religious activity I respect that.

 This seems a fair approach, but must it not bring a difficulty to the true believer? For if one truly believes in a supernatural deity that has established a moral code for the world to follow, that judges the individual based on his/her actions (or inactions), and that is to decide one's eternal fate, how might one then go about by day as though no such beliefs might be true, but then spend the evenings and Sunday fully accepting of their reality?

Further, would not such a ponderous supernatural being be assumed to negatively judge the believer for keeping such sacred truths to themselves rather than sharing and enforcing same?

Finally, if a believer truly believes that an individual with atheistic tendencies is destined for an afterlife of torment, should not the atheist view those most ardently wishing to save his/her soul in a positive, though perhaps misguided, light?

For is not such an individual apparently more caring with regards to the fate of the atheist than the believer who might accept the atheist's own preferred terms while knowing in his/her bosom that the atheist is bound for hell-fire?

To clarify: if one were certain of a conspiracy that would end with the injury of many, would not a compassionate individual be the one striving to warn the world in spite of being labeled a lunatic while one with less humanitarian aims simply be content to ensure that they and their family were outside of the area of effect at the time in question?

Post Praetorian said:

dclarkg said:

Post Praetorian said:

In your opinion, might the world be improved or impoverished by a general reduction of religious views?

 I don't mind people believing that myths and legends are true, what I mind is those peoples pushing religious non-sense into state laws, education programs, science class, etc. In that sense I could say that world can improve not with a reduction of the religious views ''per se'' but with a reduction of the presence or religious views in public domain affairs like health, education, social equality, human rights, etc. If someone wants to pray, go to church or other religious activity I respect that.

 This seems a fair approach, but must it not bring a difficulty to the true believer? For if one truly believes in a supernatural deity that has established a moral code for the world to follow, that judges the individual based on his/her actions (or inactions), and that is to decide one's eternal fate, how might one then go about by day as though no such beliefs might be true, but then spend the evenings and Sunday fully accepting of their reality?

Further, would not such a ponderous supernatural being be assumed to negatively judge the believer for keeping such sacred truths to themselves rather than sharing and enforcing same?

Finally, if a believer truly believes that an individual with atheistic tendencies is destined for an afterlife of torment, should not the atheist view those most ardently wishing to save his/her soul in a positive, though perhaps misguided, light?

For is not such an individual apparently more caring with regards to the fate of the atheist than the believer who might accept the atheist's own preferred terms while knowing in his/her bosom that the atheist is bound for hell-fire?

To clarify: if one were certain of a conspiracy that would end with the injury of many, would not a compassionate individual be the one striving to warn the world in spite of being labeled a lunatic while one with less humanitarian aims simply be content to ensure that they and their family were outside of the area of effect at the time in question?

 The problem is that they assume too much and don't see the evidence that disproof their claims (this must NOT be confused with evidence of the non-existence of god which is an absurdity IMHO). Also there is suppose to be ''free will'' which pretty much means stop shoving your beliefs on people don't believe them. I can understand advices and suggestions based on their faith but usually it does not stop there, also most of the religious groups by default tend to see other beliefs and people that believe them as false, wrong or ''not in the side of the truth''.

My real point here is that if you want to run a society by religious terms them you must prove that your religion and god are the true ones to follow, to do that you must present evidence of you claims that should be reviewed in terms of reality, you can't go around saying that god exists because ''I feel it'' and a ancient book says so.

dclarkg said:

Post Praetorian said:

dclarkg said:

Post Praetorian said:

In your opinion, might the world be improved or impoverished by a general reduction of religious views?

 I don't mind people believing that myths and legends are true, what I mind is those peoples pushing religious non-sense into state laws, education programs, science class, etc. In that sense I could say that world can improve not with a reduction of the religious views ''per se'' but with a reduction of the presence or religious views in public domain affairs like health, education, social equality, human rights, etc. If someone wants to pray, go to church or other religious activity I respect that.

 This seems a fair approach, but must it not bring a difficulty to the true believer? For if one truly believes in a supernatural deity that has established a moral code for the world to follow, that judges the individual based on his/her actions (or inactions), and that is to decide one's eternal fate, how might one then go about by day as though no such beliefs might be true, but then spend the evenings and Sunday fully accepting of their reality?

Further, would not such a ponderous supernatural being be assumed to negatively judge the believer for keeping such sacred truths to themselves rather than sharing and enforcing same?

Finally, if a believer truly believes that an individual with atheistic tendencies is destined for an afterlife of torment, should not the atheist view those most ardently wishing to save his/her soul in a positive, though perhaps misguided, light?

For is not such an individual apparently more caring with regards to the fate of the atheist than the believer who might accept the atheist's own preferred terms while knowing in his/her bosom that the atheist is bound for hell-fire?

To clarify: if one were certain of a conspiracy that would end with the injury of many, would not a compassionate individual be the one striving to warn the world in spite of being labeled a lunatic while one with less humanitarian aims simply be content to ensure that they and their family were outside of the area of effect at the time in question?

 The problem is that they assume too much and don't see the evidence that disproof their claims (this must NOT be confused with evidence of the non-existence of god which is an absurdity IMHO).

In what way might evidence for the non-existence of god be considered absurd?

Also there is suppose to be ''free will'' which pretty much means stop shoving your beliefs on people don't believe them.

In your view, is free will possible while a measure of information might yet remain absent?

I can understand advices and suggestions based on their faith but usually it does not stop there, also most of the religious groups by default tend to see other beliefs and people that believe them as false, wrong or ''not in the side of the truth''.

Has it been your experience that these groups tend to care less or more for those yet on the outside (i.e. the theoretically damned)? 

My real point here is that if you want to run a society by religious terms them you must prove that your religion and god are the true ones to follow, to do that you must present evidence of you claims that should be reviewed in terms of reality, you can't go around saying that god exists because ''I feel it'' and a ancient book says so.

If no such proof were forthcoming, but members of said religion were in general loving, steadfast, generous, honest, and kind would proof of the existence of that which might motivate them still be paramount? What if the alternative might be a society of certain degeneration whose source might be clearly known?

To clarify, if it might be known that by instructing individuals falsely one might achieve a societal norm of unprecedented peace and harmony; but by informing them of reality one might never achieve same, which might be the preferred option?

thejediknighthusezni said:

       Wow, atheist types really get hung up on "proof" and "evidence".

Is it to be assumed that such proof and evidence have no place in the mind of the believer? If so, how might a believer properly choose his/her faith from among the many of the world?

       You could have placed a video taped security record of the murders in front of the OJ Simpson jury and they wouldn't see it.

       If someone yells "Hey! A bus is coming around the corner and will RUN YOU OVER!!!" How much evidence would you need to get out of the road?

Might this not depend on the consequences for vacating this empty street? If, in so vacating, one is forced to leave behind all of one's worldly possessions (presumably in this case conveniently packaged into one trunk of questionable construction) is the lack of sound associated with the lack of sight of said bus likely to play a greater or lesser role than it might had they only to delay their crossing for a few moments more?

To clarify, is not the call of the theist to convert more akin to an individual being cautioned never to cross the road again? What then to do if they might happen to live on the other side?

       The objective of governance is not to achieve absolute proof. It is to achieve optimal conditions of pleasantness and decency for the individuals subject to it's jurisdiction.

       It isn't enough to hope that people will behave of their own accord. people will quickly imagine "justifications" for anything. People require fear of judgement from an undeniable power. 

This is possible...however if so, might such a view potentially contrast with an understanding of free will? For might one's will be potentially free if one is warned of certain destruction should one desist in freely complying with the will of the potential destroyer? 

       Atheism fosters the idea that there is no inescapable ultimate power.

Aside from death, presumably...

Alternately, with no ultimate reward for earthly actions or religious fervor, is the atheist commonly to be discovered plotting self-explosive retaliation against an enemy seen to be insulting a vengeful deity?

The great totalitarian tyrannies of the 20th Century were essentialy atheist.

Middle-Eastern regimes notwithstanding, naturally...(and was not Hitl--no, never mind)...

      Of course, not all forms of theism are created equal.

      To identify a form of belief that can be utilized for positive governance, it would have to display certain features:

      It must provide a reason to greatly fear the judgement of acts that defeat the purposes of "governance", as opposed to tyranny. It must authorize earthly agencies to enforce the universal principals of Civil Law, while insisting that tyrants bear NO authority to impose their lawless will. It must authorize individuals to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors from outlaw powers. It would not bring discredit upon itself by suggesting that the ultimate power needs to be protected and promoted through violence. It must consistantly promote all that tends to create the strongest and happiest human societies.

Is this to be interpreted as a suggested new religion or might you have discovered one that readily ascribes to the above?

       "Absolute Proof" would defeat the purposes of a Creator who wishes to test the character of his creations.

If said Creator might be described as all-knowing, why might He require proof of that which He knowingly created?

Further, if equally considered all-powerful, is it possible that He might willingly have manufactured a rebellious/defective creation? If so why might He have placed blame for said defect upon it? If not, is it to be considered likely that He was incapable of preventing its manufacture?

       Keep crying for absolute proof and you will see the type of characters who don't give a damn about that sort of thing holding ABSOLUTE POWER over you and everyone for whom you care most.

Are not all rulers most keenly interested in the retention of power? Do they not use whatever means might avail themselves, be it through acts of real, physical, or imaginary intimidation to retain power?

If so, why might a just and loving god seemingly behave akin to an earthly dictator jealous to maintain power? If it may be considered unlikely that He might fear an uprising, might His threatened punishments be considered real and perhaps carried out merely to pass the time? Or, if false, contrived that He might encourage His people with a great degree less effort than required of a more positive and patient regimen?

thejediknighthusezni said:

           ^Do believers want evidence and proof?-- Absolutely! I was refering to the attitude among atheists. They insist that because we haven't met THEIR standards of proof, theism can have no practical application.

Seemingly might it not be more accurate to note that without meeting such a standard, the theistic belief might merely be in question? For, assuredly must it not be apparent to still have practical application even were it to lack basis in fact?

           "...never cross the road again?"-- I was thinking that the bus represented our inevitable deaths (if Jesus doesn't come soon.) Leaving the road would mean abandoning anything that the Deity would likely find unacceptable.

This provides an improved clarity to the point...in light of which, the original question must be answered somewhat differently.

Essentially, is the simple fact of an individual warning of an impending bus sufficient cause to believe in its inevitable arrival? Would not considerations be made regarding the relative position of the individual (i.e. is he capable of seeing further) as well as his past behavior at this same crossing? For if one were to shout in warning about such a bus and yet frequently be seen to cross the same street without apparent concern might not the words of that one be interpreted differently?

Further, add to this the clamor of numerous individuals sighting all manner of approaching vehicles that this first crier arduously denies and may not the problem become apparent?

          "...Freely complying with destroyer."--  One should never comply with an evil destroyer. Well, unless the compliance is in a lesser matter in preparation for a soon strike for greater effect. One should accept the consequences of refusal.

Should one comply with a good destroyer?

          Some "believers" are suicide bombers?--  Yes, but this argument is a bit like insisting that nobody should eat fruits and vegetables, as well as rejecting stones, dirt, and poison ivey. You should carefully select what is good for food.

While it may be accepted that a suicide bomber might not be good nourishment, is it then to be considered that an atheistic dictator might a good meal make?

          ME regimes and Hitler?-- The "great" totalitarian powers were "essentially" atheist. Hitler was a proud atheist with occasional satanic occult dabblings and plenty of nods to his "Catholic" Jesuit pals.

Did he not equally provide glowing praise for his more Lutheran adherents as well as allow himself an unhealthy indulgence in pagan mythos? Yet allow that it may be accepted that the most efficient in recent history of mankind's oppressors were of the atheistic variety. How might such a commentary affect a claim regarding the purported veracity of atheism?

Essentially, if teaching a population the true source and creation of fire might occasion a greater frequency of arson, should the knowledge of fire's reality be suppressed? To clarify, is the knowledge itself to be blamed or might not the method in which it had been taught be considered a greater suspect?

          New religion or one we already have?-- I favor jettisoning EVERYTHING the Roman/Babylon state church has imposed, together with those doctrines that the great Protestant churches have insisted on retaining. We should read the NT CAREFULLY and IN CONTEXT. Most people would be surprised to finally discover Christianity.

Is not this context properly considered that of the older Testament, which ostensibly served as its foundation? If not, what might be its true context?

          Knowingly created rebellious than why blame them.--   Here I must rely upon my pathetically limited human perspective.  It seems to me that a being with a "God's eye view", seeing past, present, and future SIMULTANEOUSLY, might be simultaneously LEARNING and KNOWING. If you know in advance that Jack is going to punch Dirk in the face for no good reason, Jack's character is not one bit improved by your foreknowledge.

Is this to be understood that God might only have occasion to view humanity on VHS? If so, is it possible that he forgot that He created the original director's cut?

Alternately, if a god is capable of being timeless, how might a future unfold to an all-seeing god? Is not that future eternally apparent? If so, why might such a being judge in the now?

         "Power corrupts...."-- The only way, at the end of the day, to escape Lord Acton's dictum is for the leaders to have a fearful and passionate devotion to True Law. If God cares nothing for Law, we are all ultimately lost.

 Fair enough...

Post Praetorian said:

In what way might evidence for the non-existence of god be considered absurd?

Well, I as an atheist do not make claims of the non existence of god, my conclusion of the non-existence of god comes from the lack of evidence from the believers when they assert that there is a god. We can't take the existence of god as the default ''true'' that must be debunked. If a theist claims that there is a all-powerful supreme being then it must present the evidence of that claim and the evidence must be reviewed to see if it is true or not, if the evidence presented does not fit with the reality and knowledge of the world where we live then is false.

I don't assert that there is no god at all anywhere, I assert that all the evidence of all the gods in the human history points out to mythological tales and not the actual existence of a god. If there is a god and in the future the evidence is presented to support the claim then I'll become a believer, and if there is a god I'm certain is not one of all the ones presented in the past and present religions of the humankind.

In your view, is free will possible while a measure of information might yet remain absent?

I'm not sure that I understood the question... there is things we can't change because they are outside of or control but that does not mean that there is a destiny or divine plan of some sort.

Has it been your experience that these groups tend to care less or more for those yet on the outside (i.e. the theoretically damned)? 

They may care but in a very not caring way, like the people who help homeless people because they want to enter the paradise and not exactly because they really care, I'm not saying that every one has the same motivation but there is a lot of hypocrites as well.

If no such proof were forthcoming, but members of said religion were in general loving, steadfast, generous, honest, and kind would proof of the existence of that which might motivate them still be paramount? What if the alternative might be a society of certain degeneration whose source might be clearly known?

To clarify, if it might be known that by instructing individuals falsely one might achieve a societal norm of unprecedented peace and harmony; but by informing them of reality one might never achieve same, which might be the preferred option?

 Achieve a ''good'' society by brain washing and lies is not actually good, specially when the lies are absurd like you are going to hell for being gay or thing that actually make society worse. A true civilization should be civilized and fear, oppression, lies, punishment, segregation and etc are not civilized at all. There are many societies today that are mostly atheist and/or secular and they have outstanding social indexes. One of the many misconceptions is that if there is no god or a believe in god then everything will be chaos and immorality, societies learned how to coexists and evolve as a community long before modern religions and the gods teaching morality.

dclarkg said:

Post Praetorian said:

In what way might evidence for the non-existence of god be considered absurd?

Well, I as an atheist do not make claims of the non existence of god, my conclusion of the non-existence of god comes from the lack of evidence from the believers when they assert that there is a god. We can't take the existence of god as the default ''true'' that must be debunked. If a theist claims that there is a all-powerful supreme being then it must present the evidence of that claim and the evidence must be reviewed to see if it is true or not, if the evidence presented does not fit with the reality and knowledge of the world where we live then is false.

I don't assert that there is no god at all anywhere, I assert that all the evidence of all the gods in the human history points out to mythological tales and not the actual existence of a god. If there is a god and in the future the evidence is presented to support the claim then I'll become a believer, and if there is a god I'm certain is not one of all the ones presented in the past and present religions of the humankind.

Fair enough...

In your view, is free will possible while a measure of information might yet remain absent?

I'm not sure that I understood the question... there is things we can't change because they are outside of or control but that does not mean that there is a destiny or divine plan of some sort.

To clarify the original question: if the unobstruction of free will might be cited as the chief explanation for the invisibility of a god on this world, a consideration arises whether it might be possible for one to truly exercise same and yet remain ignorant to its cause, effect and subject? To further refine: is one able to choose to love an entity freely when knowledge of said entity is largely circumstantial and lacking depth?

Has it been your experience that these groups tend to care less or more for those yet on the outside (i.e. the theoretically damned)? 

They may care but in a very not caring way, like the people who help homeless people because they want to enter the paradise and not exactly because they really care, I'm not saying that every one has the same motivation but there is a lot of hypocrites as well.

If the Christian might declare, "There but for the grace of God go I," as a potential motivator for such action even though he might not personally care in the least, what primal urge must needs motivate the atheist to pursue the same end given that he, too, might not care in the least?

To clarify: would a primarily atheistic society be considered likely to care more or care less under such circumstances? 

If no such proof were forthcoming, but members of said religion were in general loving, steadfast, generous, honest, and kind would proof of the existence of that which might motivate them still be paramount? What if the alternative might be a society of certain degeneration whose source might be clearly known?

To clarify, if it might be known that by instructing individuals falsely one might achieve a societal norm of unprecedented peace and harmony; but by informing them of reality one might never achieve same, which might be the preferred option?

 Achieve a ''good'' society by brain washing and lies is not actually good,

Is it not a common practice for secular societies to brainwash their citizens? Is not a declared war on drugs one such attempt? An intolerance for schoolyard violence another? A push for a preservation of nature and an unspoiled environment yet a third? 

specially when the lies are absurd like you are going to hell for being gay or thing that actually make society worse. A true civilization should be civilized and fear, oppression, lies, punishment, segregation and etc are not civilized at all. There are many societies today that are mostly atheist and/or secular and they have outstanding social indexes. One of the many misconceptions is that if there is no god or a believe in god then everything will be chaos and immorality, societies learned how to coexists and evolve as a community long before modern religions and the gods teaching morality.

Allow a scenario in which a small theft might be guaranteed to go unnoticed. Given that the Christian yet knows that the Lord watcheth all, what might yet prevail upon the atheist to stay his hand?

Post Praetorian said:

Allow a scenario in which a small theft might be guaranteed to go unnoticed. Given that the Christian yet knows that the Lord watcheth all, what might yet prevail upon the atheist to stay his hand?

Are there any statistics that show the incidence of petty theft is lower among Christians than among atheists?  Aren't atheists disproportionately underrepresented in prison populations?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

Allow a scenario in which a small theft might be guaranteed to go unnoticed. Given that the Christian yet knows that the Lord watcheth all, what might yet prevail upon the atheist to stay his hand?

Are there any statistics that show the incidence of petty theft is lower among Christians than among atheists?  Aren't atheists disproportionately underrepresented in prison populations?

 If such statistics regarding theft might exist, surely they must be suspect...for which alleged thief might answer such a survey truthfully? Particularly if not yet apprehended?

The relative religiosity of prisoners has been considered, but three factors may yet account for such a divergence:

1) Any association between atheism and increased/decreased intellect/bravery.

2) Any consideration that it might be wise to admit to a given faith background to gain church support and sponsorship with an aim for early parole.

3) The real possibility that many an avowed atheist might, when at a very low ebb, consider a principled atheism to be a far less satisfying state than a more hopeful theistic outlook...particularly when allowing that if one is to believe at the same time in a finite, earthly, existence while at the same moment squandering it within a 10 x 10 one might become fairly unbalanced.

Post Praetorian said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

Allow a scenario in which a small theft might be guaranteed to go unnoticed. Given that the Christian yet knows that the Lord watcheth all, what might yet prevail upon the atheist to stay his hand?

Are there any statistics that show the incidence of petty theft is lower among Christians than among atheists?  Aren't atheists disproportionately underrepresented in prison populations?

 If such statistics regarding theft might exist, surely they must be suspect...for which alleged thief might answer such a survey truthfully? Particularly if not yet apprehended?

The relative religiosity of prisoners has been considered, but three factors may yet account for such a divergence:

1) Any association between atheism and increased/decreased intellect/bravery.

2) Any consideration that it might be wise to admit to a given faith background to gain church support and sponsorship with an aim for early parole.

3) The real possibility that many an avowed atheist might, when at a very low ebb, consider a principled atheism to be a far less satisfying state than a more hopeful theistic outlook...particularly when allowing that if one is to believe at the same time in a finite, earthly, existence while at the same moment squandering it within a 10 x 10 one might become fairly unbalanced.

So basically your argument is that atheists are more likely to commit crime, despite any evidence for such a claim, and despite evidence to the contrary?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

Allow a scenario in which a small theft might be guaranteed to go unnoticed. Given that the Christian yet knows that the Lord watcheth all, what might yet prevail upon the atheist to stay his hand?

Are there any statistics that show the incidence of petty theft is lower among Christians than among atheists?  Aren't atheists disproportionately underrepresented in prison populations?

 If such statistics regarding theft might exist, surely they must be suspect...for which alleged thief might answer such a survey truthfully? Particularly if not yet apprehended?

The relative religiosity of prisoners has been considered, but three factors may yet account for such a divergence:

1) Any association between atheism and increased/decreased intellect/bravery.

2) Any consideration that it might be wise to admit to a given faith background to gain church support and sponsorship with an aim for early parole.

3) The real possibility that many an avowed atheist might, when at a very low ebb, consider a principled atheism to be a far less satisfying state than a more hopeful theistic outlook...particularly when allowing that if one is to believe at the same time in a finite, earthly, existence while at the same moment squandering it within a 10 x 10 one might become fairly unbalanced.

So basically your argument is that atheists are more likely to commit crime, despite any evidence for such a claim, and despite evidence to the contrary?

 No such claim has been made...nor, apparently, refuted...

The question at present is what might prevent an atheist from partaking in such a theft, not whether any such crimes may have occurred in fact. 

Post Praetorian said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

So basically your argument is that atheists are more likely to commit crime, despite any evidence for such a claim, and despite evidence to the contrary?

 No such claim has been made...nor, apparently, refuted...

The question at present is what might prevent an atheist from partaking in such a theft, not whether any such crimes may have occurred in fact. 

Well, one possibility is that the absence of ancient religious creeds might itself prevent prevent partaking in all manner of crimes.  Quite a bit of killing is going on, for example, because a sacred book apparently demands it. Not being bound to such scripture, I am thus prevented from murdering heretics, or stealing their children.

Perhaps a less passive answer would be that an atheist, in order to function in society, must think about and fully form his/her own moral code.  When asked why I think it is immoral to do something, such as stealing that trinket, I generally have an explanation - rather just falling back on "because God says I shouldn't do it."