The Confused Athiest
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
1. Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence.
2. More hilariously: So if we switched the comparison to Zeus, you'd have a theological problem on your hands? Interesting.
It's certainly strongly encouraged for Christians, at least.
Faith is a virtue, doubt is a weakness. That's Faith with a capital "F" including overtones of fidelity - a strong commitment to God, believing in God's Truth. Any level of doubt is seen as a weakness to be overcome. Doubts are temptations to infidelity that must be quashed.
I'd be surprised if other religions were much different - the virtue of faith is a powerful meme for the perpetuation of religion.
I think it's interesting that in this poll, [thread=71199]How certain are you that God exists?[/thread], the only responses on the affirmative side were for the 100% certain option.
words about how to come to the platform of perceiving evidence has merit - that explains why even in fields of empiricism they tend to place a lot of focus in them
I meant "normative" in the simple sense - namely how a person has to act in order to know something
1 : of, relating to, or determining norms or standards <normative tests>
2 : conforming to or based on norms <normative behavior> <normative judgments>
3 : prescribing norms <normative rules of ethics> <normative grammar>
why would that be a problem?
I liked KennyG's response in that thread. Good answer.
I have a broad knowledge of many different beleif systems from ancient to modern. East and West.
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.
I agree in some instances it isn't. Modern day cultural impact for example. Attitudes towards diversity of beleif. And the like.
But, if we're talking about the logical possibility of the existence of Gods and Xenu and FSM etc.. then they must be treated equally as logical. It wouldn't make any sense to apply logic to one religion and illogic to the other. Would it?
Are you referring to contingent beings and necessary beings? Because neither God nor FSM are agreed to be necessary beings.
actually if you examine the history of scriptural commentaries, you will find that establishing the linear order of theistic disciplines is precisely what it is all about. (admittedly this element is missing from a lot of contemporary dialog, which tends to tyrannically simplify everything into categories of "eternal life" and "eternal hell")
by practice
how else?
Given that you cannot delineate everything we require for necessity, its quite obvious that there are schools of thought that disregard your claim
Yeah, I've been following the discussion, I just checked the poll for the first time and thought I should acknowledge the silent majority.
Not much I can add, here, when the linguistics moderator has made it clear that we should disregard reouted dictionary definitions.
reouted?
What about "belief"? Do you think "belief" implies certainty?
For example, if someone thinks (for whatever reason) that a proposition is true beyond reasonable doubt, would you say that that person believes the proposition is true?
If someone says "I believe that there is no God", what do you understand them to mean?
Does it suggest Dawkins's position, that they think the existence of God is no more likely than the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Does it suggest a weaker position, that they think God probably doesn't exists?
Does it suggest a stronger position, that they are 100% certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God?
I think it mostly means they are rejecting a certain notion of God that is presented to them. Most atheists IMO are literal thinkers.
Which makes my point: words are simply claims, they are not evidence - thus 'scripture' cannot be considered evidence of anything. The way to go about gaining evidence is to undergo the claims.
1) So, out of interest, which scriptural claims should we apply?
2) How many failures indicate that the claim is bogus?
3) Is the claim falsifiable?
4) You are telling me that you have absolutely no say on whether the fsm is true or not unless you 'practice'. I expect you to dress in pirate regalia etc before speaking any more on the matter. You can't argue against this, it's your own argument.
hence normative descriptions deliver the goods
what else?
probably the easiest way is to inquire from persons in the field - kind of like if we want to be a biologist we seek shelter of an existing biologist as opposed to diving into a bunch of books on our lonesome
depends on the student and the teacher in question
3) Is the claim falsifiable?[/QUOTE]
sure
Yes, they're rejecting the idea that an omnipotent sentient being exists... but you didn't answer the question, which related to what you understand some to mean when they say "I believe some proposition to be true."
Do you understand them to mean that the proposition is likely to be true beyond reasonable doubt?
Does it suggest a weaker position, that they think the proposition is probably true?
Does it suggest a stronger position, that they are 100% certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that the proposition is true?
Pardon... your stereotypes are showing!
I answered what I have understood from most conversations here, especially the thread on what athiests consider evidence of God; I don't think your options apply as well as my explanation. Most athiests want a God presented to them, which I find a very odd notion.