God? Don't be silly!

[nath]

Yeah - I had a mate who is a Clinical Psychologist but since I told him I thought Neuro Linguistic Programming was just an incidence of the placebo effect he no longer talks to me - I guess people get attached to these things to an irrational degree

The placebo effect is a wild and exciting thing - he should have taken it as a compliment!

 

[rynnor]

The placebo effect is a wild and exciting thing - he should have taken it as a compliment!

Yes - exactly - because the placebo effect is pretty much a demonstration of faith and the power of the human mind but I think it has negative connotations since if you make a drug and its no more effective than the placebo you tend not to get paid millions for it

 

[rynnor]

I know when it comes to psychiatry, it's anything but an exact science but it's still an *attempt* at science. They're not saying "hmm.. I prescribe lithium because I think your aura is slightly mauve".

Actually - rather pitifully that isnt far off the truth - they were prescribing drugs for decades for a range of ailments that they were completely in-effective for because they believed the drug companies flawed studies.

Tbh if I had a serious mental health problem and it came down to a choice between a witchdoctor and a psychiatrist I'd go witchdoctor every time because theres a chance he might prescribe something that actually worked

 

[nath]

Tbh if I had a serious mental health problem and it came down to a choice between a witchdoctor and a psychiatrist I'd go witchdoctor every time because theres a chance he might prescribe something that actually worked

Heh, I know what you're saying but from family experience I can say they've found stuff that does actually work. That's no doubt come through science (even if that science was based around trial and error).

However, I also know that there are an awful lot of hacks in the psychiatry field and GP's don't tend to like to refer people for some reason. We've been lucky in that we found a *very* good guy for my brother who has pretty severe bi-polar disorder.

 

[rynnor]

However, I also know that there are an awful lot of hacks in the psychiatry field and GP's don't tend to like to refer people for some reason. We've been lucky in that we found a *very* good guy for my brother who has pretty severe bi-polar disorder.

Dont get me started on GP's Medicine as a whole is not a great example of 'science'.

I always remember when they tried to write a system that would diagnose NHS patients in the same way as a GP - so they asked the GP's to describe in great detail how they made a diagnosis.

What came out of that was that they werent actually proceeding in a logical sequence of elimination - there was a large chunk of 'intuition - the polite term for guesswork '.

Patients coming in with the same symptoms would get different diagnoses and the GP's couldnt really explain why - in the end the system was ditched - turns out diagnosis has more in common with art than science.

 

[old.Tohtori]

edit: Toht, regarding your first part - we all know the harm that can come from a genuine belief in religion coupled with our natural violent humanity.

Second part - so you're suggesting deluding ones self in order to feel good? That doesn't make the belief any more valid. Plus in this scenario, this blank slate guy wouldn't be able to just say "oh, it'll make me feel good? OK I'll believe!" - you can't switch belief on and off like that. What is out there that could possibly convince him that there is a God? What evidence, what reason?

First part; but that's not due to religion, that's due to humanity. Like i said, if atheists were in power, most likely there would be science wars or some such. You can't blame religion for human nature.

Second; Like i said, not for everyone, but if someone finds comfort in that "unlikely god", and helps him live the day(to those that it does). More directly what would prove it? Well, as we saw from your answers, it's individual at best. If someone is dead persistent in "there's no god", even if something came along that was exactly like god is described, then theres no proof 'cause it's impossible for that individual.

Belief comes from god being part of the religion, and the religion being the part that makes sense. God doesn't make sense to even religious people, "god works in mysterious ways" being the thing i believe.

And i have to stress, i'm not expecting or even hoping that you DO believe, that would go against my whole argument on "why bash religion".

This is something you've mentioned a few times; "where's the harm?" For most people, there's probably no harm in it, and perhaps some good, but that still doesn't mean its actually true, and that's where I have difficulty with religion; when I was first exposed to religion, it was the fact that a lot of biblical stories actually made very little sense that led to my initial doubts; they obviously weren't true. And then one thing followed another. When I reached the point where the bible seemed no more likely than any other mythology (no offense ) and every mythology looked like early versions of comic books, the whole thing came tumbling down in my mind. After that, I was an agnostic for a long time, but the further I looked at it, the role of a "designer" just didn't fit the evidence, so I couldn't go with the idea of any higher power.

I also have particular issues with Judaic religions because tbh, if God did exist, he just seems like a right bastard to me.

I don't take offense to that, afterall, not a bible believer myself

Well, not as such.

I was brought up with the bible belief thing, as per usual in this society, but from the very first time i heard of norse ways and gods when i was about yei high(5 or 6), it made more sense. Benevolent god doesn't make sense to me, vengeful and uncaring gods(like pantheon ones) do.

It's not necessarily true, that will become clear after death, but until then i don't think it's "fair" to call someone stupid, ignorant, illogical etc simply due to believing in afterlife and there fairies of. It may be unlikely, but not untrue(atleast with current evidence or there lack of).

 

[Panda On Smack]

What's the latest scoop then? Did God do it with the lead pipe in the study or was it evolution with the revolver in the kitchen?

 

[nath]

First part; but that's not due to religion, that's due to humanity. Like i said, if atheists were in power, most likely there would be science wars or some such. You can't blame religion for human nature.

Second; Like i said, not for everyone, but if someone finds comfort in that "unlikely god", and helps him live the day(to those that it does). More directly what would prove it? Well, as we saw from your answers, it's individual at best. If someone is dead persistent in "there's no god", even if something came along that was exactly like god is described, then theres no proof 'cause it's impossible for that individual.

Ignoring that scenario, as it's not happened - what could possibly make a believer out of a blank slate given the world we've currently got? Not including some far out scenarios.

It's not necessarily true, that will become clear after death, but until then i don't think it's "fair" to call someone stupid, ignorant, illogical etc simply due to believing in afterlife and there fairies of. It may be unlikely, but not untrue(atleast with current evidence or there lack of).

The thing is, it *is* illogical, given that the believe in such things do not stem from logic. I just think such beliefs should be considered exactly as valid as your average hobo that believes he is the reincarnated soul of Jesus Christ. We can't prove it's not true, he no doubt believes it completely but it's still highly likely that it's total rubbish.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ignoring that scenario, as it's not happened - what could possibly make a believer out of a blank slate given the world we've currently got? Not including some far out scenarios.

Don't think so. If you start ignoring things, this ends real quick. As said, religion is not the reason, human violence is.

I already asnwered that god in religion comes with the religion, where the religion is the comfort(etc) which one can find himself happy to belong to.

That's how you can become from a "blank slate" to a believer. God comes with the territory and enforces the benefit of the religion.

By the way, regarding earlier, babies are agnostic. They make a choice later to hop on either side of fence

The thing is, it *is* illogical, given that the believe in such things do not stem from logic. I just think such beliefs should be considered exactly as valid as your average hobo that believes he is the reincarnated soul of Jesus Christ. We can't prove it's not true, he no doubt believes it completely but it's still highly likely that it's total rubbish.

You can honestly claim, that religion and god(s) are the only illogical things around? Or are you against ALL illogical thinking and or actions?

The likelyhood of a hobo being jesus is one paradigm shift away mind you.

Tomorrow it might shift to "god is scientifically possible", would you then accept it?

 

[mr.Blacky]

A few points after reading the thread again

All people are irrational. Trying to state that one person is more irrational then the next is impossible as we would have to know everything about a person. And looking at the thread that started this you will never know everything about a person.

Nath stated somthing like: Toht, regarding your first part - we all know the harm that can come from a genuine belief in religion coupled with our natural violent humanity.

trouble with this statement is the USSR and its wars. It was an atheist state and they have had their fair share of making wars. People tend to abuse certain things like religion, politics etc to make war. But all it comes down to is that people seem to like war. Also in most cases wars are just robberies.


Someone in this thread typed that atheism is not a faith and then compared it with a lightswitch. Cant find it anymore (thread is too big) The thing that I am wondering about is that on or off the thing is still a lightswitch except you cant see the light

 

[nath]

Don't think so. If you start ignoring things, this ends real quick. As said, religion is not the reason, human violence is.

I already asnwered that god in religion comes with the religion, where the religion is the comfort(etc) which one can find himself happy to belong to.

That's how you can become from a "blank slate" to a believer. God comes with the territory and enforces the benefit of the religion.

By the way, regarding earlier, babies are agnostic. They make a choice later to hop on either side of fence

Not quite - agnostic is a wishy-washy but thought out mindset. Babies lack all belief in a deity - they don't think "hmm, could be, but who knows" they also don't think "there definitely is no God" they simply *lack* belief in God, which is also atheism. They lack theological belief.

I'm saying ignore made up scenarios and tell me why someone coming from a completely blank slate would believe. I can see the attraction to a religion, but why would he find himself believing in an actual deity or any spirituality? What is there that leads to that line of thinking? I'm talking practically speaking here, real world scenarios - nothing imagined.

You can honestly claim, that religion and god(s) are the only illogical things around? Or are you against ALL illogical thinking and or actions?

The likelyhood of a hobo being jesus is one paradigm shift away mind you.

Tomorrow it might shift to "god is scientifically possible", would you then accept it?

Of course religion isn't the only illogical thing around, but we're discussing it here. And yes, for the most part I am against illogical thinking. Particularly when it's such a significant thing.

If someone said "God is scientifically possible" I wouldn't just accept it, I'd want to see why they thought that and what their proof is. That said, no one has said God is scientifically impossible - just that it's illogical to believe in something that has no evidence of existing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not quite - agnostic is a wishy-washy but thought out mindset. Babies lack all belief in a deity - they don't think "hmm, could be, but who knows" they also don't think "there definitely is no God" they simply *lack* belief in God, which is also atheism. They lack theological belief.

I'm saying ignore made up scenarios and tell me why someone coming from a completely blank slate would believe. I can see the attraction to a religion, but why would he find himself believing in an actual deity or any spirituality? What is there that leads to that line of thinking? I'm talking practically speaking here, real world scenarios - nothing imagined.

Babies don't aknowledge or deny god, but they also don't define that god isn't proven and thus is illogical. No baby can go through life with an atheist mindset, the god stories and the atheist sides come into play almost instantly in a society as it is today. That's why they are, in effect, indifferent of god, afterlife or the sun rising. It's not a choice that comes from choosing, but an "evolution choice" so to speak, during a very long time period. That's why i believe that they are in effect agnostic, neither pro nor against. Indifferent.

I answered that, it's not about god, it's abou religion and thus belief in god that follows. It can come from anything really, heartache, loss, search of support, visions...anything that leads people to find god.

Of course religion isn't the only illogical thing around, but we're discussing it here. And yes, for the most part I am against illogical thinking. Particularly when it's such a significant thing.

If someone said "God is scientifically possible" I wouldn't just accept it, I'd want to see why they thought that and what their proof is. That said, no one has said God is scientifically impossible - just that it's illogical to believe in something that has no evidence of existing.

Alright, that's clear enough. Have you gone through all parts of your life and eliminated illogical parts? Like, love? What's your take on that. Or drinking per example, there's no need for it, and it's highly illogical to do so because there's no gain. Just asking and making sure that does that anti-illogical thinking extend to 100% of your life.

Yes, but if they had simply chosen to say that "in scientific circles, god is now a concept that can be proven" and most if not all major science circles would accept it as "how it is now", would you accept it?

Good example;

Earth is flat, everyone knows this.
Some lunatic comes along and says it's round. Hmh. Proposterous!
Later, the lunatic is right.

Change earth to god, there's nothing to deny that it's not a possible scenario that every scientist on the globe is wrong about this and if THAT is true, then belief in god isn't illogical, just not very likely.

Without someone saying "god is possible", it could never be proven to be possible. Isn't that the whole point? To challenge our views and to think outside the box to find new things?

Also, since everyone on this thread has agreed that religion and belief in god o an individual level isn't necessarily bad, if someone isn't a raving lunatic, we can deduct that it's not religion or god that is the problem, but people in large groups.

 

[nath]

Babies don't aknowledge or deny god, but they also don't define that god isn't proven and thus is illogical. No baby can go through life with an atheist mindset, the god stories and the atheist sides come into play almost instantly in a society as it is today. That's why they are, in effect, indifferent of god, afterlife or the sun rising. It's not a choice that comes from choosing, but an "evolution choice" so to speak, during a very long time period. That's why i believe that they are in effect agnostic, neither pro nor against. Indifferent.

I answered that, it's not about god, it's abou religion and thus belief in god that follows. It can come from anything really, heartache, loss, search of support, visions...anything that leads people to find god.

Well this is getting in to semantics, but I'd not agree with that assessment. I'd say that because a baby has no theological belief system that makes it an atheist.

I don't feel you did answer the question though - you explained why someone might go for religion, that's easy to understand but why would a belief in God follow? Simply because someone would want to fit in and follow what others are doing? I can't see any other reason for it other than it's comforting to delude yourself about such things.

Alright, that's clear enough. Have you gone through all parts of your life and eliminated illogical parts? Like, love? What's your take on that. Or drinking per example, there's no need for it, and it's highly illogical to do so because there's no gain. Just asking and making sure that does that anti-illogical thinking extend to 100% of your life.

For the most part, but love and drinking aren't necessarily illogical at all. As it happens I don't really drink but that's got nothing to do with it, people who do drink enjoy it. You say there's no need for it, but one could say the same about many things in life. Doing things for enjoyment isn't illogical, quite the opposite. You could counter that people enjoy believing in God, that explains why they do it but does not make it any less of a delusion.

Yes, but if they had simply chosen to say that "in scientific circles, god is now a concept that can be proven" and most if not all major science circles would accept it as "how it is now", would you accept it?

Good example;

Earth is flat, everyone knows this.
Some lunatic comes along and says it's round. Hmh. Proposterous!
Later, the lunatic is right.

Change earth to god, there's nothing to deny that it's not a possible scenario that every scientist on the globe is wrong about this and if THAT is true, then belief in god isn't illogical, just not very likely.

Without someone saying "god is possible", it could never be proven to be possible. Isn't that the whole point? To challenge our views and to think outside the box to find new things?

Also, since everyone on this thread has agreed that religion and belief in god o an individual level isn't necessarily bad, if someone isn't a raving lunatic, we can deduct that it's not religion or god that is the problem, but people in large groups.

Well, it's been an awfully long time since we thought the world was flat . Either way, if proof were to come out that God existed I'd analyse the data myself and make up my own mind. That's the point - currently that can't be done as there is no evidence for any sort of spirituality, just "feelings". That's what this whole thing is about - trying to get people to think more critically.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well this is getting in to semantics, but I'd not agree with that assessment. I'd say that because a baby has no theological belief system that makes it an atheist.

I don't feel you did answer the question though - you explained why someone might go for religion, that's easy to understand but why would a belief in God follow? Simply because someone would want to fit in and follow what others are doing? I can't see any other reason for it other than it's comforting to delude yourself about such things.

Semantics, aye, and we can't agree on that and can't prove it either way without asking a newborn abby, so let's not

God is part of religion, religion is part of god, you can't pick and choose, well you can, but then some religions aren't for you. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't. No one ever, ever, just thinks "oh, there's a god", it comes as i said, with the territory. God enforces religion and as such, the benefits you gain.

For the most part, but love and drinking aren't necessarily illogical at all. As it happens I don't really drink but that's got nothing to do with it, people who do drink enjoy it. You say there's no need for it, but one could say the same about many things in life. Doing things for enjoyment isn't illogical, quite the opposite. You could counter that people enjoy believing in God, that explains why they do it but does not make it any less of a delusion.

Well, it's been an awfully long time since we thought the world was flat . Either way, if proof were to come out that God existed I'd analyse the data myself and make up my own mind. That's the point - currently that can't be done as there is no evidence for any sort of spirituality, just "feelings". That's what this whole thing is about - trying to get people to think more critically.

Let's not get into semantics about the examples. If you say "for the most part", that surely means "not all", right? If some parts of your life are illogical, how can you judge other peoples illogical thinking?

That wasn't my point. My point was the question that would you agree that it's a possibility that the god concept is right, but due to current knowledge, we might be deluted in thinking there is no god, simply 'cause "that's how it is"?

 

[nath]

Semantics, aye, and we can't agree on that and can't prove it either way without asking a newborn abby, so let's not

Well I think we can agree that a newborn baby doesn't have any belief in God - the question is as to whether that makes it an atheist or agnostic. I think the former, you clearly the latter.

Let's not get into semantics about the examples. If you say "for the most part", that surely means "not all", right? If some parts of your life are illogical, how can you judge other peoples illogical thinking?

I said for the most part because I can't think of any illogical parts to my life, that doesn't mean that they're not there. If someone found illogical behaviour traits in me I'd be happy to discuss them. Besides, many of them may well done without my concious awareness. A belief in God is a concious thing and I think people should really think about it critically if they're going to consider it a belief. Actually I'd like to think, while I may do some illogical things (without realising it), I don't really have any illogical beliefs.

That wasn't my point. My point was the question that would you agree that it's a possibility that the god concept is right, but due to current knowledge, we might be deluted in thinking there is no god, simply 'cause "that's how it is"?

As I've said several times, I've no problem acknowledging the possibility of a God, but it has a place in my mind shared with all the other completely unproven ideas that have absolutely no evidence whatsoever - such as my desk lamp, Jorgé. That's always been my point - it's a massive double standard that if I start saying my ikea lamp is the creator of the universe I'm batshit crazy, if a Christian says his invisible friend is, that's fine. All ideas with no logic, no evidence are equally valid.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I said for the most part because I can't think of any illogical parts to my life, that doesn't mean that they're not there. If someone found illogical behaviour traits in me I'd be happy to discuss them. Besides, many of them may well done without my concious awareness. A belief in God is a concious thing and I think people should really think about it critically if they're going to consider it a belief. Actually I'd like to think, while I may do some illogical things (without realising it), I don't really have any illogical beliefs.

Well doesn't that mean that belief should be banned in general? 'cause that's what it is.

Also, like i said earlier, many serious christians and other believers are critical about their faith. Study it day and night, and so forth.

So am i to assume that you're not against belief in god in general, but against the quick belief in one? As in, "easy belief" if you will?

As I've said several times, I've no problem acknowledging the possibility of a God, but it has a place in my mind shared with all the other completely unproven ideas that have absolutely no evidence whatsoever - such as my desk lamp, Jorgé. That's always been my point - it's a massive double standard that if I start saying my ikea lamp is the creator of the universe I'm batshit crazy, if a Christian says his invisible friend is, that's fine. All ideas with no logic, no evidence are equally valid.

Yeah, and that's what differentiates you from the "generic atheist" who outright denies god. Yes, that's a bit of a compliment

It's really hard to understand though, that there MIGHT be a god but belief in that MIGHT is not ok. If you can explain a bit more why, might get it.

 

[nath]

Well doesn't that mean that belief should be banned in general? 'cause that's what it is.

Well, that's not strictly true. If I hold something then let it go, I believe it will fall to the ground (assuming there's nothing in the way and I'm not holding a helium balloon ). This belief is based on experience of it happening and beyond that a vague understanding of the physics involved. Belief in God can't claim any of these things.

Also, like i said earlier, many serious christians and other believers are critical about their faith. Study it day and night, and so forth.

Maybe so, but without any evidence for a belief in God they're studying fairy tales - nothing that grounds it in reality.

So am i to assume that you're not against belief in god in general, but against the quick belief in one? As in, "easy belief" if you will?

I'm against *belief* in something that has no logic and evidence.

Yeah, and that's what differentiates you from the "generic atheist" who outright denies god. Yes, that's a bit of a compliment

It's really hard to understand though, that there MIGHT be a god but belief in that MIGHT is not ok. If you can explain a bit more why, might get it.

There *might* be a God, but my desk lamp might be Jorgé the destroyer of puppies - both are equally valid and equally absurd. Without evidence or logic, they should both be dismissed as fantasy despite the fact that we can't rule out the possibility of either.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There *might* be a God, but my desk lamp might be Jorgé the destroyer of puppies - both are equally valid and equally absurd. Without evidence or logic, they should both be dismissed as fantasy despite the fact that we can't rule out the possibility of either.

Rest are a bit repetitive, but this;

Jorgé isn't mentioned in the history of mankind, since history books have been, as being worshipped or believed in.

Makes it a bit different.

How well proven is the big bang theory?

 

[nath]

Rest are a bit repetitive, but this;

Jorgé isn't mentioned in the history of mankind, since history books have been, as being worshipped or believed in.

Makes it a bit different.

How well proven is the big bang theory?

I don't think the fact that something has been mentioned a lot in history is a valid reason to accept it.

The big bang theory is just that though, a theory - but a theory with *evidence*.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't think the fact that something has been mentioned a lot in history is a valid reason to accept it.

The big bang theory is just that though, a theory - but a theory with *evidence*.

It makes it more acceptable then jorgé.

Aye, but from what i've gathered, a lot of theories can't say the same. Yet don't they hold as much merit as the theory of a creator?

EDIT: Or to say it differently;

You'd probably dismiss someone who had a theory about god faster then someone who had a theory about something "earthly". Right?

 

[Turamber]

If I hold something then let it go, I believe it will fall to the ground ... This belief is based on experience of it happening and beyond that a vague understanding of the physics involved. Belief in God can't claim any of these things.

Really? How many things are you aware of that had no progenitor or no maker? Is it a common occurence in Nath world?

How many species are you aware that have died out? If they died out they didn't evolve into another species did they?

And apologies for jumping in and out of this discussion but I seem to work a bit more than some people

 

[nath]

You'd probably dismiss someone who had a theory about god faster then someone who had a theory about something "earthly". Right?

Well that entirely depends on the theory and how much evidence it has. When you say something "earthly"... make an example.

Really? How many things are you aware of that had no progenitor or no maker? Is it a common occurence in Nath world?

How many species are you aware that have died out? If they died out they didn't evolve into another species did they?

And apologies for jumping in and out of this discussion but I seem to work a bit more than some people

I'm not aware oxygen has a "progenitor". If we're talking life - well yes, life reproduces - I don't see how that argues for or against the idea of a deity.

I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make with regards to the species dying out? If you're trying to counter the idea of evolution, how does that help?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well that entirely depends on the theory and how much evidence it has. When you say something "earthly"... make an example

HArd to really make an example that isn't a theory already, hmm...

How about someone came along and said that due to nature being mostly living in 12 segments, like 12 body parts or some such, there are infact 12 planets in orbit of the sun.

He showed that this has 12 things, that has 12 things, those have 12 things, ergo, the whole system is built on 12s. Now, he hasn't found this 12th planet because it has according to him, such a large orbit.

...now i think i have to start studying this

 

[nath]

Ah but in that example, regardless of the specifics he's saying correlation implies causation.

The Pastafarians have a great graph to demonstrate the flaw in this thinking. As the number of seafaring pirates has reduced, the global climate has gone up. Ergo the lack of pirates is responsible for global warming.

edit: incase the image link doesn't work: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

 

[old.Tohtori]

...nath!!

I didn't give that example so that we could argue how good it is and how it works, i posted it as an example of a theory that you most likely would listen to while dismissing any god theory :lol:

 

[inactionman]

Aye, but from what i've gathered, a lot of theories can't say the same. Yet don't they hold as much merit as the theory of a creator?

As theists often do, you don't seem to understand what a theory is (even worse, fundamentalists tend to deliberately misunderstand it). In scientific terms it doesn't just mean an idea (that's conjecture), it has to fit the facts, be supported by evidence, and be independently verifiable. Therefore there can be no theory of god/s.

 

[nath]

...nath!!

I didn't give that example so that we could argue how good it is and how it works, i posted it as an example of a theory that you most likely would listen to while dismissing any god theory :lol:

That's what I'm saying - I'll analyse any theory presented to me with the same level of thinking. I don't give more credit to something just because it sounds more plausible.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's what I'm saying - I'll analyse any theory presented to me with the same level of thinking. I don't give more credit to something just because it sounds more plausible.

You're thinking it too much for your own good again.

A: Theory on god.
B: Theory on 12th planet.

Both with as much evidence or there lack of.

You would give more credit to B and even approach it with more of an open mind, no?

inactionman, i do understand it very well thank you. But you've just demonstrated a fine point, when nath said that there CAN be a theory on god(s).

That i think is a similarity, while religious folk may be limited to their views, an atheist uses science too much to allow an open mind when discussing religion in general.

 

[nath]

Ok, lets move away from the word "theory" and say idea. If an idea was presented that had absolutely no evidence, I'd not give it any more credit than the idea of a God.

As an atheist and indeed a sceptic, I consider that I've got an open mind - I just require evidence before accepting something as I know how flawed the mind can be and how we can see patterns where there are none in the absence of any scientific proof.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok, lets move away from the word "theory" and say idea. If an idea was presented that had absolutely no evidence, I'd not give it any more credit than the idea of a God.

As an atheist and indeed a sceptic, I consider that I've got an open mind - I just require evidence before accepting something as I know how flawed the mind can be and how we can see patterns where there are none in the absence of any scientific proof.

Fair enough.

But you can accept that it is a fault too, when engaging in open discussions and , how to put it, speculations? It's easier for a theist to discuss both sides, if the theist isn't an extremist, then for an atheist to do so. When discussing issues that might need some non-proof thinking too.