The Confused Athiest
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
SAM:
You've done science, have you not? You work in a scientific area.
What kind of thing do you consider evidence sufficient to justify a belief that a certain diet is good or bad for you?
Now apply the same kind of reasoning to question of whether belief in God is justified by evidence. What do you conclude?
You've done science, have you not? You work in a scientific area.
What kind of thing do you consider evidence sufficient to justify a belief that a certain diet is good or bad for you?
Now apply the same kind of reasoning to question of whether belief in God is justified by evidence. What do you conclude?
Science, apart from geometrical and mathematical proofs, works by what is probable within a reasonable doubt. By this standard, there is no God.
If a prophet made a risky and specific prediction that later came true. For instance, if they predicted that on December 26th, a tsunami in the Idian ocean would kill tens of thousands of people.SAM said:
I often think it's interesting that some theists think belief in Xenu/Allah is rational by any stretch of the imagination.
I've pretty much given up on any pretense of logical debate. It's pointless.
Just how long did SouthStar debate before he came to the epiphany that there may not be a God? How young was he? It probably become less and less probable that such epiphanies can be made after a certain age as brain plasticity slows with age. Not to mention individual physical parameters.
I've pretty much given up on any pretense of logical debate. It's pointless.
Just how long did SouthStar debate before he came to the epiphany that there may not be a God? How young was he? It probably become less and less probable that such epiphanies can be made after a certain age as brain plasticity slows with age. Not to mention individual physical parameters.
Perhaps we need a NEW religous subforum where all people who enter such forum MUST check a box that stipulates that they agree that at the present there is no more evidence or logical explanation for God than there is for Xenu or FSM. Perhaps all participants should also agree it's not possible to "prove" FSM etal. doesn't exist.
Some sort of checked box to even read the question of debate - so at least that way the only people who enter will have at least put that much of an effort forward.
Some sort of checked box to even read the question of debate - so at least that way the only people who enter will have at least put that much of an effort forward.
For me, the change happened between 25 and 30.
What do you mean not logic?
Evidence ties pretty close to logic wouldn't you say?
ex:
'evidence' is used in courts of law when trying to determine if a statement is true and it is seen that this is a logical approach to determine what really happened.
IS the following statement true?
There is equal evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of FSM.
True or False
Evidence ties pretty close to logic wouldn't you say?
ex:
'evidence' is used in courts of law when trying to determine if a statement is true and it is seen that this is a logical approach to determine what really happened.
IS the following statement true?
There is equal evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of FSM.
True or False
That would be false, Michael. The FSM (or Russell's teapot) analogy illustrates one particular idea - that of the onus of proof. The analogy shouldn't be taken any further than that.
There is evidence for God (historical documents, accounts of miraculous events) - the question is whether that evidence is good/reliable enough. Obviously, an atheist considers it to be not good enough.
There is evidence for God (historical documents, accounts of miraculous events) - the question is whether that evidence is good/reliable enough. Obviously, an atheist considers it to be not good enough.
And there are theists who don't consider that sort of evidence to be enough, either.
There are different kinds of theism, with very different doctrines. It is unfair to treat them as if they were all the same.
Most of the atheism that goes on at this forum is specifically atheism shaped against a particular form of Christianese, while ignoring other doctrines about God and how one can come to believe in God.
I'm not sure that I understand.
Which theisms have you studied?
not really, since there are a host of normative descriptions that go with God and essentially none that go with the FSM - Russell's analogy is a response to the (often christian) backed claim that all you have to just "believe" in god (which is not a particularly suave normative description) ... and for that purpose, the analogy works fine.
As Greenberg points out however, there are other approaches within theistic philosophy.
I see your point, agreed. There may not be a requirement to be certain.
In the case of theists being certain about their doctrines based on their beliefs, is it a requirement?
*************
M*W: And with that said, Iasion..., I think we need a new sub-forum on Atheism, because Atheism is not a religion, it deserves its own sub-forum. However, that would probably open the can of worms that is christianity, Islam, and all the rest who are fooled by their deities. Thank the non-existing gods for the moderators!
BTW, there is no such thing as "a confused atheist."