Atheism

Author: RaymondSheen
Atheism

Posts

Total: 302
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
think of it this way

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?

why not ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?

have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?

or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?


furthermore,

if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaos

would you think that person is probably insane ?
That is quite the non-sequitur, what is the point of this mess, and what does it have to do with the subject of Burden of Proof.
the "burden of proof" is quite obviously on the claim that NANABOZHO is the one true creator god

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator god ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or do you think that people who DON'T believe in NANABOZHO have a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they don't believe in NANABOZHO ?
#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
2. Atheism, at least militant, is a form of theism. A position of a theological nature, antithesis of theism, but theological nonetheless.
that would be like claiming that NOT being a doctor is a medical position

a dog is an atheist, that doesn't mean that a dog fabricates "a theological position"
#93
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@cristo71
P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.
P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.
P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.
C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.
impressive
#94
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Topic's author
#95
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
the claims and definitions of YHWH are falsifiable with LOGIC
Demonstrate, please? In another thread if you wish or this one. 

#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
the claims and definitions of YHWH are falsifiable with LOGIC
Demonstrate, please? In another thread if you wish or this one. 
sure, do you think it's fair to say the key claims of YHWH include the claim that YHWH is omnipotent omniscient and the creator of all things (OOC) ?
#97
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
think of it this way

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?

why not ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?

have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?

or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?


furthermore,

if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaos

would you think that person is probably insane ?
That is quite the non-sequitur, what is the point of this mess, and what does it have to do with the subject of Burden of Proof.
the "burden of proof" is quite obviously on the claim that NANABOZHO is the one true creator god
Not obviously at all...especially since nobody claimed that "NANABOZHO is the one true creator god".

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator god ?
I'm more familiar with Dayunsi actually. 

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?
Nope.

or do you think that people who DON'T believe in NANABOZHO have a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they don't believe in NANABOZHO ?
Nope, and I don't believe this nonsense that the Theist has a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they do believe.

That's not a thing.
#98
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.

Anybody want to debate this?
#99
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't believe this nonsense that the Theist has a "burden of proof".

Well you wouldn't believe it if you are a theist because  you are of the misguided believe that to take this stance allows you relieve yourself of the burden of proof. Well it doesn't! And it is not nonsense at all.

It is the theist that makes the claim for the existence of a all singing all dancing god, as he also claims the bible is the true and faultless word of the god he believes in.
Topic's author
#100
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Early Christians were atheists! At least, that’s how some people of the time viewed them in the earliest centuries, and it’s not difficult to see why. Most importantly, they refused to worship the traditional gods. But also, judged by Roman-era criteria, they didn’t even seem to practice a recognizable form of religion.
Not really. They were/are all theist. Theism isn't specific to any god, it's just a God and/or gods. There has always been a seemingly pointless (to me) debate on whether Judaism/Christianity are mono or polytheistic. Pointless to me because they are henotheistic. Which you can say is polytheistic but that isn't entirely true. Anyway. In the broad sense what you say may be true, but it was due to error. Today Christians have differences which they interpret as disqualifying others in that sort of way but they are all theists. Theism means gods, atheism means no gods. Right or wrong (most of them are wrong) they are still theists. Roman, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc. I say wrong because of the source and obvious history of apostacy.

it's a little weird that you want to apply the BROADEST POSSIBLE definition to "god(s)"

but you insist on the most specific and inflexible definition of "atheist"
Both are applicable only in the broadest possible sense. There is only one sense. It's simple. God means venerated/mighty. Atheist means without gods, but confuses all gods as being in some sense, God. The Arabic word Allah means the (al) God (lah). The contention is that you can't logically say you have no gods if you confuse it that way because you don't understand the simple meaning. I know JWs. Much of our beliefs are the same because they removed the apostacy, the pagan influence. They know that if something as mundane as knitting, boating, sports, sex, nationalism becomes more important than their God, Jehovah, they must admonish the member of the congregation from doing that. And rightly so because those things can unknowingly become their God before Jehovah. A god is someone or something that you respect (venerate) more than anything else. So, yes, money and food (as Paul said their belly) can become gods. So the three companions captive in Babylon wouldn't eat the meat devoted to gods, wouldn't bow to the King or his idol, a simple pole. The JWs won't pledge allegience to a flag. 

An atheist would do many of those things without thinking because they don't understand the meaning of the word god(s). It doesn't have to be creator, omnipotent, supernatural, spiritual, etc. It doesn't have to be anything but venerated.  



Topic's author
#101
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps if 100% of your government officials told you they worship NANABOZHO and the teachings of NANABOZHO are the guiding principle of their moral compass

then you might be at least slightly concerned
From a theological perspective, no. From an ideological perspective, not me. When it comes to guiding principle, that is taken, by Jehovah. And moral compass - that isn't something that's dictated in the sense that I follow the laws of the government unless they interfere with God. If the government in your hypothetical says NANABOZHO says speed limit 55 I say okay. 55 it is. If the same government says I have to go to war and kill others for any reason or abort my firstborn child I say, no. Not going to do that. If they say we kill you I say kill me.   

#102
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, and I don't believe this nonsense that the Theist has a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they do believe.

That's not a thing.
so, if someone tells you they were personally abducted by spacealiens

would you believe them ?

would you simply take them at their word ?

or would you maybe perhaps have a few questions ?
#103
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.

Anybody want to debate this?
some are and some are not

which specific flavor of theism are you prepared to defend ?
#104
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Well you wouldn't believe it if you are a theist because  you are of the misguided believe that to take this stance allows you relieve yourself of the burden of proof. Well it doesn't! And it is not nonsense at all.

It is the theist that makes the claim for the existence of a all singing all dancing god, as he also claims the bible is the true and faultless word of the god he believes in.
well stated
#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
e because they removed the ap
you say: everything is a god and if you believe in something, anything really, then you can't be an atheist

i say: this has nothing to do with people who actually call themselves atheists because atheists simply lack belief in the demonstrable POWER of THEISTIC GOD(S)


i've never met an atheist who claimed to not believe in money or statues or books or whatever the hell you think qualifies as a "god" in your own mind

atheists are not a monolith, they believe many different things for many different reasons

just like theists or anyone else
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
If the same government says I have to go to war and kill others for any reason or abort my firstborn child I say, no.
ok, but if the book of NANABOZHO demands that non-believers be destroyed, would that maybe get your attention ?

do you think maybe at that point NANABOZHO might warrant some attention ?
#107
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.

Anybody want to debate this?
some are and some are not

which specific flavor of theism are you prepared to defend ?
Nobody believes in the God you don't believe in, so it's not about that invisible bearded man in the sky you don't believe in.  

Literalism is plain stupid, you will get your ass handed to you if you don't know the difference between literalism and Theism.  

If you want to argue that Theism is not rational, you probably should have at least a smattering of familiarity with the subject matter of the debate.   

The statement was simple and straight forward, rather than trying to make it about something else, just take it at face value.

Is it your contention that Theism is not a reasonable or rational position to take?



Topic's author
#108
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
the "burden of proof" is quite obviously on the claim that NANABOZHO is the one true creator god
What claim? Scientific? Theological? Debate or Secular? It isn't the responsiblitity to prove to someone you saw a ghost if they refuse to believe ghosts exist. It isn't the responsibility of someone to prove to someone else that ghosts don't exist if someone refuses to believe they do. Who cares? Believe what you want. In debate it may be different but there is faith and faithlessness. Science can't prove or disprove God. Neither can theology or faith. It's a lame request. A fake victory. 

You're wasting your time if you think you can prove or disprove anything to someone with a contrary ideology. First of all, who cares?  

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator god ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or do you think that people who DON'T believe in NANABOZHO have a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they don't believe in NANABOZHO ?
If someone says to me NANABOZHO is the true God and exists my likely response would be, okay. Whatever you say. I'm not going to go on a forum and argue with them on the subject. I'm also not going to go on a forum and argue Democrat / Republican or Labor / Conservative or whatever you happen to argue about in politics. I consider that stupid. I don't care about "proving God" to anyone. 1. it's faith and 2. it's your individual responsibility. 

I always thought the cry of "burden of proof" was a fake cop out myself. Like a corrupt judge saying "I'm the law" or Fauci saying "I am science." It doesn't mean anything and anyone with sense can see that. 
#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Is it your contention that Theism is not a reasonable or rational position to take?
some flavors of theism are reasonable (based on reason) and some are not

which specific theism are you prepared to defend ?

you said giant-sky-daddy-grandpa is NOT what you're prepared to defend

ok, great

do you want to go down the list and detail all the versions you are NOT prepared to defend ?

or can we just skip to the part where you indicate the version(s) you ARE prepared to defend ?
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
It isn't the responsiblitity to prove to someone you saw a ghost if they refuse to believe ghosts exist.
sure, probably not a general responsibility, like, it's not their duty to their family or to their state i guess unless the ghost told them, you know like a god, to "spread the good news to the world" or something ridiculous like that

responsibility in this case is more like the idea of a responsibility to yourself

 (IFF) you want someone to believe you saw a ghost (THEN) it is your own responsibility to convince someone

you can't really blame anyone for remaining UNconvinced
#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
I always thought the cry of "burden of proof" was a fake cop out myself.
are you familiar with formal debate formats ?

it's like a sport

one side attacks

the other defends

The burden of proof lies with the person making the truth claim.

whoever has BOP is the defender

every formal debate declares BEFORE the debate, which side has BOP
#112
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
You're wasting your time if you think you can prove or disprove anything to someone with a contrary ideology. First of all, who cares?  
clearly you find this entertaining
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
I'm also not going to go on a forum and argue Democrat / Republican or Labor / Conservative or whatever you happen to argue about in politics. I consider that stupid.
sure, do whatever you want

but rhetoric becomes policy
#114
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Is this assertion a claim you are making?
Yes
Please provide proof of your claim that "the burden of proof falls into the side that is making the claim".
No
Topic's author
#115
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
that would be like claiming that NOT being a doctor is a medical position
No, it would be like saying a doctor has to be defined by some arbitrary adherence to some fraudulent criteria because the real doctors have been chased out of the country and called quacks, which the frauds who chased them out actually are. All by monetary incentive corrupting the legislature and medical profession. I.e. Fauci saying "I am science!" or a cop saying "I am above ze law!" 

a dog is an atheist, that doesn't mean that a dog fabricates "a theological position"
The dog, then, in your words will . . . 

"lack of theological belief

and  are "merely unconvinced by any specific theistic claim"

and 

"thinks about god(s) the same way you think about bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters"

and

"clarify, that they are an "atheist" specifically relative to theistic versions of gods that demand humans obey them

in other words,

NOT a THEIST"

#116
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RaymondSheen
Sex isn't God, sex can be a god.
Sure, and I can hire someone to work for me offering them $100 an hour, by which I really mean $9 an hour. Because that's how I define $100 an hour.

We can play these silly little games all day long, but the overwhelming majority of people understand theism/atheism as positions on the existence of a god and understand a god to be what I described earlier.

Whether you choose to speak English is up to you, but if you're trying to have a productive and meaningful dialog you'll do much better by speaking the same language as the people you are interacting with.

God and gods aren't the same.
They are not categorically different. God is just the most powerful conception of a god, that's not relevant to the topic of theism vs atheism.

Atheism denies the existence of gods but it is clueless or decides what gods are which isn't in line with theism or definition or it's just a xenophobic imitation of what it denies. The product of ignorant and hypocritical ideologues. Just a socio-politically motivated sort of class struggle. It's about control because...
You really seem to have an axe to grind. I suggest you focus your ire on the individuals guilty of whatever you object to instead of making up an ideology and then ascribing that ideology to anyone who uses the same label under which you placed your made up ideology.

Atheism isn't a world view, it's a response to theism. 
A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Theism is a worldview. How is atheism, as a response to that, not a worldview?
Again, theism is "a god exists". Atheism responds to that by simply saying "I don't accept your claim". You struggle to understand this because you insist on overcomplicating it and then wonder how it could not be as complicated as you made it.

I would actually disagree with you on whether theism is a worldview. If a person declares themselves a theist that tells me next to nothing about what they believe. Do they believe in one supreme God, or a plurality of gods? Do these gods interact with the natural world? Do they care what happens within it? Do we live per lives according to their will, and if so, what does that look like? Is their god kind and loving? Jealous and spiteful? Neither? Both?

If I told you I'm a communist (I'm not) that tells you a lot about how I see the world. Telling me you're a theist tells me far far less.

What I object to is the ambiguity if not complete willful ignorance of the gods part of atheism.
Really need you to expand on this.

That isn't a claim that isn't even an offer. You aren't rejecting the claim in a reasonable manner which is totally acceptable, you are distorting the claim for the same reason the theists distort it.
You haven't made a claim for me to accept, reject, or distort except for your mischaracterization of what atheism is, which is why I'm correcting it (or trying to anyway). We can certainly get into the many claims theists have presented throughout the ages but that would seem to be a deflection from the topic.
Topic's author
#117
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@ebuc
YOur the person using ambigous term of 'super'natural, and I was very clear  early on that, Universe is the top dog when it comes to being supernatural.
Okay. That's a start. I've found the best way to, as Popper said "contradict [my] own assumptions" is to listen to contradictory positions. Give me yours. Elaborate. 

The other words that use prefix super are analogies to help you grasp that just sticking the word super in front of word natural doesnt mean anything unless you can define it clearly what it is your talking about.
Very well. Good job. Supernatural from the Latin super- (above, beyond, or outside of) + natura (nature). So, simply, to me, supernatural are things science can't explain because science is knowledge of nature. That is roughly it. You could argue that in many ways, I suppose, by questioning the limits of scientific "knowledge" which is basically, more often than not, an opinion. As far as we can tell, subject to change - thus Popper's quote. An ideologue adheres dogmatically to while a scientist adheres to a continuing investigation. If we know something it isn't science because science is investigation not a belief system. See? It's contradictory depending on how you look at it. 


Is Superman supernatural? Yes, because, tho fictional the concept is he is j man from another planet whose molecular design makes him supernatural by earth man standards.
Agreed. 

Is a super-market super-natural? No, tho it is super-duper by al previous markets on Earth.
Okay. Now I see where those references came from. Still don't see the connection as far as any argument you would have against my statement that God is supernatural and can't be tested as such. 

Is a super sale at a super market super-natural? 
No, I would say, it's a supermarket. Literally (hyperbolic intensifier) above market. Superman literally above man. Our confusion could be linguistic. My grammar is horrible and English your second language? If I'm not making myself clear let me know.  

Depends various factors, ex if the market manager looses money, then it becomes un-natural to have such a sale where you loose money. Maybe the owner just made a mistake is un-natural due to sickness in head and body.
Hmmm. Actually, such a sale would be natural. Or, heh, naturally stupid, i.e. Latin stupidus mercatus.   

Earth is natural planet. --being of nature--  So is Venus, Jupiter etc. We have super this and super that in our super-natural Universe.
The ultimate super-natural is finite, occupied space Universe.
Sure. Above. But earth isn't above earth. I used the epidemiological term isolate earlier. To isolate a pathogen, a virus, if I'm correct, doesn't mean to isolate it from everything, for example, the host, because it will die. It means "collecting specimens from infected patients and culturing (growing) the viruses present in those samples." You can't isolate a virus from its host. Isolating a patient means separating them. Some confuse the two applications of the same term. In our discussion super means above and natural means in nature. Theologically there is, for example, a physical heaven (Venus, Jupiter) which is "above" earth from the perspective of someone on earth, and a spiritual heaven above that. Spirit means invisible active force. Something we can't see but can see the force of. From the Greek word pneuma, where we get pneumatic, pneumonia. It can be translated in various ways contextually, wind, breath, compelled mental inclination (i.e. mean spirited) or spirit beings (highly advanced intelligent extraterrestrial beings we can't see) or even submicroscopic germs, energy perhaps.

So until you can define your super-natural, as Ive have done clearly twice for you, then your lost in your own mind game, that no one else knows what your going on about. Please be clear and define your supernatural whatever.
Okay. Can science falsify the Biblical God hypothesis by evidence?  If so, how, if not why? 

Topic's author
#118
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@cristo71
P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.
P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.
P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.
C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.
I agree completely. 

Now what about the gods. Atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of God or gods. We've covered and agree upon God, now what about gods. Obviously gods in general? None specified. 

#119
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@RaymondSheen
My argument applies to any gods who are unfalsifiable.
Topic's author
#120
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) sure, but this broadest of all possible definitions is NOT the one that most (if any) atheists are subscribed to
Okay, but that doesn't change it. If most creationists subscribe to a definition that is not evolution that doesn't change eveolution.  If it isn't right it isn't right. If it isn't wrong it isn't wrong.  The definition of atheism should be disbelief in supernatural gods. Just God or creator gods, or whatever. Not God and gods. Unless the belief isn't literal but trust in which case it should stipulate that. 

So, if I say to an supposed atheist what is a god and they say something they don't have that controls other people, not them, or something that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omni etc. they don't understand what a god is, what it meant to Bible writers or how it isn't what they think it is and therefore so it does likely control them BUT they also don't care, wouldn't care even if they did know BECAUSE the gods aren't really the issue and they wouldn't change a thing. 

(2) the term "rejects" is a loaded term - remains UNconvinced is more accurate
I know. 

(3) depending on which specific definition of "god(s)" the speaker and the audience are entertaining, "god(s)" may be either unfalsifiable or logically incoherent - if a definition of "god(s)" has sufficient empirical evidence, for instance if one were to rename "the big bang" "god" then, in my experience, the atheist would explain that they are not an atheist in that specific case.
You've made this point before so . . . It doesn't really matter in that it isn't germane. But just in case I've already covered this and your response (if I'm not mistaken) is contrary to your conclusion because you conflate, as I've said repeatedly, God and gods. So, the "rejection" comes from ideology. Like racism, sexism, misogyny etc. Very powerful stuff. Almost impossible to change. In a sense meaningless. The racists don't care, they don't want to change or even know why they "reject."

The unconvincing may seem to come from ignorance but that's only on the surface. You say, for example, that some atheists wouldn't have a problem with the big bang as a god, but if that's true it's only because the term doesn't mean anything to them. It isn't dependent upon ignorance beyond the surface because if you educated them, they either wouldn't accept it or it wouldn't be meaningless to them.