How do we know?

I think I agree. However, would you then be willing to say that the same way you know gravity is the same way you know god? Which includes theists by default as a portion of the "significant number". However, the "fact" is that theists are not using consistant "presuppositions" to reason and understand the two worlds....that's the problem belief is established on reason and understanding of perception....what are theists perceiving differently than atheists that leads them to the conclusion that both ARE real while using different "presuppositions"? There has to be "give and take" in order to reason. As any other human, on average, theists have to be perceiving their world(s) like atheists...imo, the difference is that theists use a different set of presuppositions and a different line of "reasoning" based on perception (as you pointed out it's a biased alpha). Wait a second, once again you are posing as though the same presuppositions that define this world are somehow strictly limited to atheists....I think theists define this world using the exact same presuppositions....the last part is a blatant lie....they are just NOT scientifically verifiable...the difference is we don't decide to name it god. Appealing to something that cannot be tested or information gathered from puts it out of reach to both atheists and theists.You are misrepresenting ALOT of posters on this forum because I've personally seen many people clearly state that it is not the existance of god that they have a problem...I think it's all the crap in THIS WORLD that theists like to extrapolate on based on this UNKNOWN.Based on another thread, I forget the title, using your current rationale you would be required to entertain the likelihood of leprechauns....there is no way that either theists OR atheists can prove/disprove them.

Cool avatar, btw. A minor point wherein I've seen some people argue as though they don't "believe" in gravity as though atheists' presuppositions don't apply to them. However, Great, I agree! But, what the hell is this? This is the theist's, imnsho, mistake...trying to mix realities. While I concede (how grand of me, eh?) that atheists cannot prove a god does not exist based on their reality and presuppositions by the same token theists cannot prove a god exists using strictly their own reality and presuppositions. Here, you are trying to use "evidence" from one reality, the atheists reality and yours as well, of a god that exists in a different reality based on a different set of presuppositions. This was a question which stemmed from the simplified definitions I got about belief and cognition. The way it read to me is: one perceives (I would hazard through the 5 senses, but I don't know) and then reasons and understands the perception which then becomes a belief or not....something like that.....so, that's why I wondered what perception the theist is receiving into the same carbon unit the atheist has with nothing but the 5 senses to sample the environment like the atheist....yet out pops a belief in the atheists reality (like gravity) AND a belief in this other reality.....I conclude split realities that theists have trouble distinguishing between, so a problem in the reasoning/understanding part (not that simple I'm sure).The lie: That was because there is something that is unknown and incredible about this world....maybe that's what you have decided to name "god", BUT I don't name it...it is "simply" an unknown.

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you...neck deep in my atheistic/scientific experiments I don't think this is known, so 'NO'. I should not have used this term. Let's drop the term "reality" (I dropped "trust" as well for the same reason). Ah, and this is what we are discussing. So, let me go over my line of logic AGAIN since it seems you kind of focused on the side points I made versus the claim that your OP makes.1. Theists have (for this discussion) two sets of "presuppositions" that account for their "belief" in the existence of a god. SET #1 is the same as the atheists in terms of basic scientific "beliefs" and is acquired exactly the same (in terms of the 5 senses):
- gravity
- mathematical calculations, weights, measures, etc.A. "I believe there is a god because of this WRITING by so-n-so in this book".**This theistic "belief" acquisition of writings and sayings clearly lies within the same "belief" acquisition as atheists. So, it is subject to being tested and verified within SET #1's parameters and then based on results reasoned if the "belief" is valid.SET #2:
- self-experience.B. "I believe a god exists because of my own personal experience".**This, imo, can not be confirmed or denied at this point in time.2. So, to reiterate, the theist's "belief" in the existence of a god draws from BOTH sets of "presuppositions".THE PROBLEM:Since the "belief" of a god was first acquired in the same manner as a "belief" of gravity by default the "self-experience" came SECOND. So, your OP asserts that atheists and theists all have "presuppositions" that lead to equally valid "beliefs".Absolutely NOT. Why? Because theists argue that SET #1 supports their "belief" of a god, BUT at the same time deny SET #1 when it is used by atheists to negate the assertion as a valid "belief" of a god. So, then theists are left with SET# 2, but who cares because I for one can't prove or disprove what an individual experiences. Not if you assert that the bible (SET #1) contributes to your "belief" of a god.So, there really is no "separate but equal" when it comes to the acquisition of "beliefs" in the above context.

This is definitely less true for atheists than theists.You began this thread stating the following which I picked as a point to rebutt: You ended with the following statement: This was my goal. It was great going back and forth with you. I hope you did great this semester. I'm sure we'll bump into each other again. You'd have to show me where anyone of merit on this board has claimed to be able to prove/disprove the existence of a god. I certainly don't.