I don't think Emery is really an atheist, Atheist or theist

[crazyaussie2k]

Whilst I know no background on Emery, I'll give my perspective on what I think is going on. It seems that whilst he holds on to his atheistic beliefs (or rather, lack thereof); deep down, hopes he is wrong. No man can fault him for such hopes either.

Surely the prospect of an eternal void must be disconcerting to even the most hardened atheist. If not that, then the eternal separation of deceased dearly loved ones (even if, from an atheistic standpoint, such a conscious perception would only last a finite time until upon one's inevitable death).

[/rant]

[skeptic griggsy]

As the eternal void did not matter before my birth, it will not matter after my demise! What counts is my life right now and it is so good!

[skeptic griggsy]

Heaven is just another mystery surrounding the mystery called God. Where is it?One question begs it , it seems, in assuming that it exists.
This one life, our own meanings and human love suffice; a future state,divine meaning and love partake of the universal neurosis that stems from the mere feeling that some super mind is behind and beyond the Universe.As Existence[ the Universe] is all there is, God cannot be transcendent but only immanent. And since the Ockham gives Him nothing to do, the presumption of naturalism holds.
This presumption is that natural causes are the efficient,necessary, primary,sufficient and ultimate causes and explanations. This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists as one could try to find evidnece to override it as Einstein's evidence restricts Newtonian theory.
The ignostic argument is that God" hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf,"[ the god of the gaps ] states atheologian Keith Parsons, and he adds,"Occult forces wielded by a transcendent being in an incrutable way for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation."None at all, for God did it is magic and meaningless.God wills what He wills is unimformative[ a useless tautology].God lack meaning.He is incoherent.
Now to allow meaning for Him, the Ockham,using his razor shows that one has to use ad hoc assumptions that natural causes do not. We no more need God as a personal explanation,contrary to Richard Swinburne, than we need angels in additon to the laws of motion to explain the orbits of the planets, gremlins for mechanical problems and demons for mental illness[ I use therapy and medecine for mine rather than an exorcist.].This lies behind the presumption.
These two arguments as well as the failure of theodicy to work are the basis for any atheology.
God rests on the mere feeling that some super mind rests behind and beyond the Cosmos.That mere feeling sees God much like people see Yeshua in a tortilla or Allah in an explosion-pareidolia. That mere feeling is a replaceable placebo! [This post rates its own thread.]

[skeptic griggsy]

If theists cannot rebut the presumption of naturalism,then they cannot show God .
Now they allege that naturalism and supernaturalism both rely on faith. A, the naturalist has confidence based on experience and the supernaturalist just has blind faith in the end. To equate the two is to make the fallacy of equivocation.
B, Sydney Hook notes in his response to Raphael Demos:"Science is an eaboration and development of comon-sense knowledge which because it is knowledge is not faith.I f it is retorted that such knowledge rests on 'faith' and is therefore no more valid than religious knowledge which rests on 'faith,'what must first be establish is that we have religous knowledge."
Hook makes the practical point that science has overcome diseases whereas relgion has nothing to offer but faith healing.
We naturalists are fallibilists, accepting the provisional truth.
Of course , Emery is really an atheist! He is not at heart a believer just angry at God or wanting to rebel against His morality; he advocates a better one- humanist![FONT=Optima][SIZE=7][COLOR=purple]