If such a point existed, I wouldn't be an atheist.
Although, to be honest, lightgigantic could very well be completely right. I don't know whether he is or he isn't. But right now, there is no basis for me to believe he is, so I don't.
Why one should believe in god
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
If such a point existed, I wouldn't be an atheist.
Although, to be honest, lightgigantic could very well be completely right. I don't know whether he is or he isn't. But right now, there is no basis for me to believe he is, so I don't.
But your beliefe should surrender...???
If he is entirely right (and prince_james and he argued about this one a thread. I think PJ started a thread asking for atheists arguements because there are so many on the board!!!), you should at least believe that...
I don't understand. Would you mind rephrasing?
If you are a theist, do you believe that it was of supernatural or natural causes? Some people say that God(s) would be omnipotent. Is that natural or supernatural? Atheism and agnosticism both ask for evidence from nature. While incredibly complex and diverse, was it created or caused? An alternative to consciousness or death and the need for faith are popular reasons why one should believe in creation. A while ago there was a lengthy and mostly objective thread about evolution, creation, and other beliefs.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2563
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2563
As far as I'm concerned, the most compelling argument for atheism comes from science. Evolution essentially proves that complex effects can procede from simple causes. It is not necessary to postulate a complex creator to create a complex universe.
Most concepts of God are anthropocentric in nature, in spite of the fact that billions of years went by on an Earth filled with a diversity of life and no people.
Most concepts of God are anthropocentric in nature, in spite of the fact that billions of years went by on an Earth filled with a diversity of life and no people.
this is a classic example of people using scientific theory to jump the gun on scientific fact.
Please explain how his statement does this?
How so? Another confidence statement, LG? That's so unlike you!
the notion of god from an atheists point of view is man made, but the existence of god to a theist is not man made.
peace,
peace,
From what I gather from discussions / arguments with LG - his beliefs tend to be logical, but without evidence - or at least without evidence that a non-believer would class as evidence.
And thus it is often seen as a case of "believe to believe".
Also - the "evidence" he claims for his direct perception is, from an external viewpoint, nothing more than a perception of "X" - where his teachings / authority have told him that "X" is god.
Thus he believes he has direct perception of god - where in fact he relies on the authority of his teachers to tell him that that is what it is.
From an external viewpoint - one should first discount the possible, however improbable, explanations for "X" before claiming it as god.
Until one does that - LG's claims/beliefs are nothing but an appeal to authority, however logically consistent they may be.
And yes, he may well be right.
I also might well be right in saying that the FSM exists in an unobservable bubble in an orbit around Wolf 359.
Don't need to work something better. It boils down to what you want to hear, nothing more. Person X has this claim while person Y has that claim, you'll believe whatever claim suits your agenda.
evolution tentatively suggests this, since macro evolution is neither observable or testable, what to speak of abiogenesis
this would be a true statement if abiogenesis and macro evolution were both observable and testable
I hold that Western science isn't capable of comparing and contrasting the validity of one method of knowledge against others. Why? Because its own basis is too narrow. That basis was summed up by Albert Einstein in Out of My Late Years (1936):
Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.
Einstein admitted that this method cannot even prove the existence of the external world. So how can we be sure that the bodily objects scientists study are real things? Aren't such objects just mental interpretations of a jumble of sense data that, with a nonhuman mind, or even with a human mind culturally different than ours, could be interpreted in a very different way? Wouldn't a different interpretation of sense data reveal a very different world? Which interpretation is the right one? And how, by this method Einstein described, can we ever know whether there is a reality outside the range of our sense experiences? These questions are not for science to answer. They are for philosophy. There is a difference between the scientific approach and the philosophical approach.
-substance and shadow - S.Swami
In other words "fact" and "interpretation of sense data" ( or "method", as einstein states), like for instance the indication that the archaeological record offers in regard to prehistory, should not be confused
the difference is however that theism lays claim to direct perception along with methodology, and atheism relies on tentative claims ("god probably doesn't exist")
all this would be true except that there are persons arguing from the position of the direct perception of god (unlike the FSM/celestial teapot etc) and also offering the means to arrive at that direct perception (by sources that are more credible than say children's activities guides for St Patricks day)- thus the arguments of persons who contravene the means of direct perception can be treated as insubstantial, much like the claims of a high school drop out who contravenes the standards of knowledge in physics can also be treated as insubstantial
very scientific of you