Well I agree with most of that, except where you say that faith and reason are opposites.

Have you heard of me? I'm the guy that pointed out that by nature faith is not passive. I am going to have to mill the idea of "acting actively" around in my head for a bit because I can figure how to do any different.

You appear to admit something can't be tested. It seems more reasonable to me to think of faith as an admission that our tests aren't perfectly reliable.

Everything comes down to faith.

I tend to agree

At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means.

The primary means are always the intellectual constructs of the individual.

Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason.

There are various external record keeping tools like the bible that that are used to create standardized intellectual constructs found to be beneficial. ALL of these involve reason.

you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means.

That doesn't make sense to me. If I have a rubber ball, and I claim that it bounces, what should I use to give credibility to my claim?

Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason.

Yet I am doing so right now!?

An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means.

If you are concerned with being credible...I agree

I have faith in the Bible.

Me too, I have faith that it's useful for promoting atheism

Others have faith in reason.

If you are on a debate site you have faith in reason.

It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.

WTF?

Reason is automatic. It's how we think.

No disagreement there

One doesn't need faith to merely think.

One doesn't think without a reason. Not trying to equivocate here, but thought is an endeavor toward some underlying hope, and hope requires faith.

One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.

How is it possible for an ideal to be formed in the mind without some sort of evidence?

How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.

Would you seriously claim that beliefs are formed without evidence? I would say that standards for what constitutes convincing evidence varies, but invariably all beliefs are based on evidence.

You don't have to have faith in reason.

If you are going to make use of reason you have to believe it will be worthwhile.

Reasoning is demonstrably accurate, as it uses the laws of logic inherent in the structure of the universe.

Faith is demonstrably accurate/inaccurate too. For example, even though I might be wrong, because there is surely a great deal of evidence I haven't considered, I have faith that the sun wont explode tomorrow. Tomorrow my faith will be tested.

I'd be interested in reading any proof you can provide that the laws of logic are inherent in the structure of the universe.

You only need faith in things you have no evidence for.

You need faith if you admit you are likely missing seriously important evidence.

Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability? You do realize that we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right? As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it. I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.

I understand that your argument is based on the "belief without evidence" interpretation of the word faith, but this statement.... We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition. .... I don't understand. Please help

The flying spaghetti monster is a function of your own personality, (and exists as least as such) an imaginative construct that you pay too much attention to if your claim to worship it was honest.

God, if you go by the traditional theistic definition, is the proper object of worship.

I don't go by it, and I wonder why any atheist would.

If you do not assume this is true, then you are attacking a straw man.

I do assume that the definition you provided above is the traditional theist definition. AND FURTHER I think only a theist could go by such a definition.

I am arguing with you and I'd prefer not to argue against a stereotype or strawman. So tell me what you (not the traditional theists) think god is?

However, even if you do, you are also begging the question because such an assumption is based on evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.

That comes across as rather nonsensical but here I go responding anyway..

How my assumption (that you have indeed given the traditional theistic definition of god) would make you think my argument (which is that what gods are are real people who are worshiped) is begging the question is to put it mildly, unclear to me.

Thus, no matter how you look at it, your argument is invalid.

A statement like that is evidence that you completely trust a judgment you've made to be infallible.

My argument doesn't assume that it's proper to worship or that anyone's obligated to worship. Merely that worship occurs and that therefore gods exist.

You are arguing against a strawman.

So then......

if god is the unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives.

and The unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives is still happening

then god exists

Fine what do you think god is? :)

As I am atheist, I don't think there is being worthy of worship. This doesn't mean I can't realize that others judge differently and that the beings they worship do exist.

Ah but an individual CAN communicate with themselves can they not? Messages are sent from one part of the body to another, are they not?

Do you disagree that prayer is a form of internal self dialog? Do you disagree that what is regarded as god is actually an element of a persons personality that is mistakenly judged to be infallible?

The communication is coming from "what god really is" which is an intellectual construct (based on personal interpretation of events and messages) that's regarded as infallible.

My definition of god might be in need of refinement, but I think it's more rational than an alternative that refers to a supposed non-existent.

How can you address a problem while claiming it doesn't exist?

Oy vey! I knew what he meant .

A message or two ago, you weren't acting as if you regarded the argument as being clearly with out merit. A comment such as "I think this is perhaps where the flaw in the argument lies." displays doubt about your ability to clearly expose a flaw.

By all means expose the flaws. I am here to be shown the error in my thinking.

Perhaps you can help make it clear to me, by asking pointed questions and establishing a set of undisputed logical premises. I'm prepared to take the time to be held accountable. Even if no one else will commit to building a logical argument from the ground up, I will.

When a theist prays and "hears" (imo imaginatively conjures) a response, that response originates from a being that exists and is represented as god.

Every communication purported to come from god comes from a real living being.

I'll try a different angle.

The problem of theism is not a believing in non existent entity problem it's an excessive and uncritical trust in (worshiping of) existing entities problem.

Declaring atheism does not make one immune to the problem of worship. Modern atheism doesn't amount to much more than constantly reiterating "I don't believe in fairies"

when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept?

It's a term that can represent a wide variety of concepts. Rather than talking about which are most popular, I'd prefer to address the concept you maintain in your mind about what god is.

are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'?

Please treat me as an individual and don't try to stereotype me. I didn't find the articulations of what is referred to as the ontological argument very convincing or compelling myself.

this type of argument has already been defeated.

I'm sure there's a number of people who disagree, so it hasn't been completely defeated.

concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.

I'll argue that with you if you don't think it would be a waste of time.

"An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican

lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god.

I suppose that lots of ppl receive false teachings through communication with such a ppl, and when asked they'll say they learned it from god. The lessons aren't coming from nowhere.

'god', generally denotes a supernatural being.

If you want to use the word supernatural I'll expect you to define it logically. Are you sure you want to digress in that way just yet?

so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist.

Everything exists. Well described or not.

there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities.

How about a being that is regarded as being worthy of lifelong unwavering trust, and is considered incapable of error.

we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.

I think you would you agree that god is an imaginative construct.

you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.

Yeah I have. And it really bugs me that so many atheists accept and use the definition of god thats offered by them. Lets talk in terms of what is.

thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.

We can do our own scriptural interpretation. I hope you don't think I am being dishonest. I am just looking to refine the way I think and express my thoughts. If you want to help sweet, if not I understand.

There is some nuance here that may require some digging to clearly flesh out. But for the sake of argument, if god is defined as a worshiped being, I don't think that worship being improper would invalidate that definition, or somehow disprove their existence.

If there is no proper object of worship, either God's existence is unknown to us or that there is no God.

I think thats a false choice argument.

I don't think so. But atheism perhaps is itself a thought tradition in philosophy.

Indeed but I am thinking about a core principle that rules out certain intellectual activity that is absolutely regarded as something one ought not take part in. A ruling logic. I'm sure I could clarify...its late going to bed.

I never said it did, and I agree with you that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it. I'll go further and say the premise doesn't imply an ought at all. Are you thinking I am a theist? I'm not. Perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about theology. Do you think that even atheists have the intellectual equivalent of a theology?