you describe human behavior. this has nothing to do with the argument for or against god.

@hankster Religion is based on people's concepts of a god. Without some sort of reward/punishment system I doubt we'd be having this discussion. However, the bottom line is that the universe has rules and laws and does not work by magic or supernaturalism and it certainly is not anthropocentric.

any declaration for or against God is presumptive.

@hankster So any declaration for or against Father Christmas or tooth fairies is also presumptive?

@Petter no, those things are real.

religion has nothing to do with it.

@hankster really? Than what is an atheist, then?

@1of5 someone who maintains the point of view that no deity exist in the universe.

@hankster wow, that really helped. So now I guess I'm left wondering how deities aren't a part of religion.

@1of5 a religion is a set of dogmas, traditions, rules etc. built around a faith in a man-made god/deity. god or some higher mind in the universe would not be a man-made creation and likely so far out from human perceptive potentials we couldn't even imagine its character. religion is very different from any god-mind i am trying very hard not to characterize..lol.

@hankster so an atheist isn't a deist. Certainly glad you cleared that up for me.

@1of5 i reckon it depends on the sandbox they play in.

@hankster deists believe in a creator that set everything in motion then doesn't interfere, or even care about what happens, or one who watches to see what happens. Its a branch of theism that rejects the trappings of organized religion and tend to live like an atheist would. Its your basic "some god did it and theres nothing we can do about it" outlook.

It does, however, include a supernatural component, as do all religions. Atheists reject supernatural explanations. There's nothing presumptuous in rejecting the supernatural, but there is something presumptuous in claiming a supernatural explanation for that which is currently inexplicable.

@1of5 I see both as equally presumptuous.

@TheAstroChuck @1of5 @skado @Brentan @Petter, I certainly mean no antagonism nor disrespect, and I suppose if I'm going to make such a barebones statement, I should be prepared for a little more explanation. So, a little more....i think mankinds best efforts are nowhere near the degree of comprehension of this existence to dismiss the possibility of a "god". we can't cure the common cold, we can't fix traffic, many of us are still unable to let go of beliefs in mythologies. I look around me in this universe and one of the most remarkable things I see is Consciousness. Probably the best evidence for "god" ever. Too often, readily dismissed as some feature of evolution, which quite incredibly allows the universe to open it's eye's (mind) onto itself. This feature of the universe (awareness) we hardly understand, but some declare, "there is no "god". Perhaps they're correct, but I think they just aren't ready to know.... so they don't know yet. thus the presumption. peace y'all.

edit: i reckon i should also state that what "god's" nature is, is anybody's guess. at least nothing we've ever heard of.

@hankster That sounds fair enough to me! I'm an agnostic so my mind is still open about god. At the moment, I think god might be consciousness and awareness. If so, the power of consciousness/awareness must be far greater than what I can imagine.

@brentan seems like if it were imaginable it would have to be imagined by itself.

@hankster Have you considered that the further up the evolutionary tree, the more the animal is aware of itself, which is a good definition of "consciousness"
Many mammals and birds have remarkable intelligence and self-awareness.
Now technology is working on artificial intelligence, and creating a sort of awareness. How long before a machine becomes sufficiently aware of not only its surroundings, but also its existence? It will happen provided man does not hurtle down the path to extinction.

@Petter what if AI saved us from extinction?

@hankster .... or speeded up the process?
What if man became utterly dependent on his machines, and then their infrastructure collapsed? Would man, (or at least those who survive the catastrophe) revert to being a nomadic ape, noted for having warring tribes?

@Petter we are already dependent on our machines, and we are already noted for having warring tribes. seems like we're doing a pretty good job of speeding up the process on our own.