What are we defining here? A foot race is only valid if all runners begin from the same starting line. That’s easy to do on a track field, but starting this discussion from a uniformly accepted definition of it’s central premise is nearly impossible and this is why this discussion rarely changes someones position. This personal terrain of intellectual territory is already staked out and vehemently defended. it’s too bad. We’ve heard the phrase he or she brings a lot of emotional baggage with them, the question posed above brings up an enormous and essentially confusing intellectual “baggage” when people try to formulate their answer.
Problem number one; The question behind the question above is “Do you think there is a God?” How can we hope to answer this question if we have nothing more than a vague and very imprecise definition of the word in question “God?” The word is like no other word in human language in it’s power to act as a verbal trigger for the brain to instantly attach and ascribe preexisting definitions to it’s meaning whether or not these definitions are accurate. A good example would be to ask how many gods are there in the Hindu religion? Fervent believers assert each one is real, something very doubtful. Astrology, and voodoo are believed because of the human mind’s natural habit of defining and categorizing what it experiences. It’s highly prone to error and mistaken beliefs tend to have a long shelf life.
The question posed is “Why did you choose atheism” One might credibly answer “Because I’ve never been offered a clear and convincing counterargument.” It wouldn’t be surprising to hear that response because any rebuttal to the idea of atheism usually comes from one very flawed source, religion. Religion poisons the discussion of whether or not a transcendent agent is responsible for the creation of the universe. Let’s try a mental reboot of how we define the word “God” Setting aside all anthropomorphic projections of who, how, or what he is we might define this entity as being a preexisting (eternal) form of lucid, and self-perpetuating energy whose dominant attribute is love. I use the word love here not in it’s colloquial sense but more in a metaphysical context. Could such a supreme being exist? My answer is yes and in my opinion it’s science not religion that makes the best case for the existence of God. I can offer what I think is a compelling case for the intellectual assertion (not the religious assertion) that an original, intelligible and transcendent supervening power is real.