What I was responding to was "Actually, since there is no god, he can not be responsible. So the individual is responsible for what happens." What I'm saying is that those are not the only options. The "so" — the causal connection — is unfounded. I get hit by a meteorite. There are no gods, so gods are out as a theory. But that doesn't mean that the meteorite strike was my fault..

I'm with you all the way on the laziness of theistic belief. I just don't think a jump to "we are responsible for everything" is any more valid.

I'm enjoying this conversation, thank you.

But the true believer would "blame" god would they not. O god, why hast thou foresaken me is a frequent plaint. And yes such a belief is pernicious. To overcome the unfortunate things that befall them is supposed to make a believer more devout, more slavish in their praise and devotion. In hopes of avoiding future catastrophes.

I agree that parsimony is a rule of thumb and not a proof of anything. I just meant that whenever theists drag a god into the picture that just adds the necessity to prove there is a god and we all go back to square one. A needless trip, so far as I can see. This reliance on god is simply a cop out we don't need to contemplate. It stops people from continuing a search that may eventually lead to a real answer and not a metaphysical one.

If it was not clear, I am an atheist. But:

I'm with you on points 1 through 3. But we diverge at point 4. If a drunk driver plows into my home and kills me, it cannot be the case that a god willed this. But it is also the case that I did not will it. Believing that the individual is responsible for everything that has happened to him is not simply wrong, it is pernicious; it leads to (common-to-theists) beliefs that, for instance, the world's destitute and sick are in such a state because of something they have done.

Also, while a desire for parsimony is generally a good rule of thumb, it cannot be permitted as a criterion for what is true. It could be said that monotremes add unwarranted complexity to the mammals. I think that it would be more parsimonious if, at their core, everything were made up of one type of thing, but instead it is looking like "six" (i.e., quarks) is the answer. (By the way, I chose these two examples carefully. Evolutionarily, monotremes are parsimonious, as they show a preserved intermediate step. And string theorists are bothered by the six-quarks bit, too, and are using it as motivation for continued exploration.

But this is so obvious that I am believe you are making a more sophisticated point. The fact that complexity is not necessary is not a proof that things are not complex. If you will bear with me, could you elaborate — again?

If bad things happen then god wanted them to happen.

Actually, since there is no god, he can not be responsible.

So the individual is responsible for what happens.

Putting god in the picture simply adds unwarranted complexity.

I don't follow. Religionists believe God can indeed take the burden: all they have to do is postulate inscrutability. "God works in mysterious ways", for instance. To a non-theist, it seems like the religionist has kicked a critical leg out from under himself. The non-theist thinks the religionist has ceded crucial ground by making the God hypothesis untestable. But the religionist is proud of faith without logical backing. I don't see that you've supported your point.