rationalskepticism.org

Hermit wrote:

BWE wrote:We can empirically examine beliefs as generated from something. Any attributes pinned to a god were put there by a human and presumably were attempts to explain empirical experience.

This is true. However, the question asked in this thread is: "Lack of belief in gods =/= believing there are no gods?"

Historically, theists have this tendency to redefine god when challenged about his existence. Wisdom's parable is quite a fitting description of that. Every time an atheist makes an empirically based objection, theists will reply with something that diminishes what their god is. They become invisible, inscrutable, wise beyond mere human comprehension, and so forth. In the end their god(s) are impervious to empirical examination. Every . fucking . time. And it does not matter if you argue with some namby pamby Catholic who does not object to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and whatnot, or some died in the wool brimstone and hellfire fundamentalist.

Once transmogrified from a real, personally meddlesome god to an incomprehensible, vague creator of everything and uncaused cause not a million miles distant from the Divine Watchmaker, I tend to let their new what god is not type definition stand and simply comment that I recognise gods by what they do an until I see evidence of their agency I lack a belief in their existence. Such evidence would of course entail proof that the garden would definitely look different were it not for the work of the invisible gardener.

This approach places the onus of proof for the existence of god(s) on theists, and they have no escape to non-empirical "explanations". It also relieves me of having to disprove the existence of a do-nothing Divine Watchmaker, should they be tempted to shift the onus on to me.