Dear Atheist

Having read all of this, it would seem the standard is mutual agreement. If an idea is well regarded by enough people then it gains some modicum of truth, more agreement and it gains even more truth. People presumably make this judgement based on their personal feelings.

I started to criticize this standard, but then realized that it is very similar to science. For in the end after all the evidence is gathered and the arguments are made, how are we to know which is right? In the end, it is basically by majority rule -- each of us is an imperfect logical engine because all of our logic is based on emotion -- each scientist weighs different evidence differently based on their predilections and experience. So one piece of evidence may be discounted by some scientists and held as the key to the whole puzzle by others. So the only way to really judge the worthiness of a scientific hypothesis is by what percentage of those people who are well-informed on the topic agree with it. I'm guessing it is likewise with theology.

I dunno, if I concluded that there was some deep meaning in the fact that no one had responded to provocative things on my blog within a day, I'd be the most meaningful dude on the planet. :)

Seriously though. The issue is mostly about a relation to our common reality. We all of us pretty much implicitly treat it as a moot point that our common physical reality exists. If you want to take issue with that, you're welcome to, but even arguing the point in practice concedes it.

We're then all left here, on this planet, trying to make sense of things. What exists? What doesn't? What things are true? What are false? The point of most atheists is not that science and empirical data are known to be the only possibly ways to answer those questions, but rather, if you're going to propose an alternative, you do have SOME standards to meet in convincing people that your alternative is workable and actually determines truth from falsehood, as opposed to just making stuff up or not really explaining anything.

For myself, I'm endlessly frustrated with "supernatural" explanations not because I insist on materialism or naturalism or any such thing, but because I insist on good explanations that actually explain things. And I'm endlessly disappointed by "supernaturalism" or what have you: it never casts light or insight on anything, answers mysteries, makes me go "ah ha!" Take questions about conscious experience, and geez, what the heck IS it? Science doesn't know. Heck, philosophers aren't even sure we're phrasing the question correctly. But theology and "non-natural" philosophies claim to have answers that supposedly the material world cannot provide. And yet, when you boil these "explanations" down, you basically get a creative rephrasing of our original ignorance.

So it's not that things like science are the "most satisfying" in any real sense. It's just that I'm still waiting to find out how the specific proposed alternative of, I dunno, supernaturalism?, provides anything satisfying at all.

Ya know, for some reason I didn't think this post would get much comment. It seems that my suspicions have been confirmed.

So let's say that naturalism is not a given atheists' measure of verifiability. Give me an alternative and we can address the same question. Having no beliefs is right dishonest don't you think? In other discussions I have had with atheists and agnostics, naturalist was actually preferred since it gets rid of any reference to the god thing as it were. Hence my assumption. Perhaps, if you find me to be presumptuous, you can share your epistemological alternative to the god thing.

Dear Theist,

Why do you assume that all atheists have a "belief" in naturalism? Not all atheists are naturalists, and visa versa.

Beg the question much?