I know that it's been terrible of me to only present one side of an argument. How uncivil, how uncaring can I be? Never let it be said that I don't allow for open discussion, no matter how many time Honshui and Fugle post that they can't post.
In that vein, I have found a truth-teller in arms, a brother in logic for them; it's Stan from http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/.
From atheism, to evolution, to the very laws and properties of nature, Stan has proven them all wrong with undergrad level logic and a steadfast commitment to only using definitions for words that back his play. You guys should stop by and say hi to Stan. He understands your frustration with stupid atheist who refuse to open their eyes and minds to the real Truth.
11 comments:
that was a sad waste of time
he cuts and pastes from another site, gives what he thinks is a quick break down of what folk said and then..... well nothing
saddity saddity saddity sad
i am not sure how we got to this point. To recap, the issue is not are atheists right or wrong about their position that there is not a god, or gods, or anything supernatural. The point was only that since you can never know with certainty that something does not exist, to go further than saying "it seems unlikely that there is a god" to "there is no god" requires faith or belief. A science based position would acknowledge the probabilistic existence of a god whereas a philosophy based logic/reasoning would tend to make the stronger statement.
As with debating anyone with strong beliefs, the atheist cadre that frequents this blog have not been open to the discussion but instead have used insult, aggression and general noise to push their position rather than openly discussing it. Christopher Hitchens seems like a good icon for the movement.
Or to put it another way, why do atheists require certainty in their lives? Why do they need to be right as opposed to settling for being reasonable?
As anything is probabalistic, because it is impossible to prove a negative, I will give equal weight to the probable existence of the xian god, zeus, invisible leprechauns from the nth dimension etc
But where does that get us and what purpose does it serve? The chances of them existing approach zero to such a degree that positing their existence is useless.
Other worlds theory is all very good in a philosophical context, but banking on anything other than the physical world that we exist in serves no purpose at all.
I have seen no evidence that would convince me of the need to consider a hypothesis that involves an appeal to the supernatural. It follows from this that I am convinced that a supernatural realm doesn't exist. You say it does, so convince me.
I may or my not be God. I don't know . . . .
I guess we'll find out if my pants fit when it's time to go back to work.
I didn't say the supernatural exists, only that it could exist. Being comfortable that the balance of probabilities weighs against the supernatural and a god existing I conduct my life in a secular (a-religious) way. I do not feel strongly enough about the situation to try to convince someone who believes in the supernatural that they are wrong. To the extent that their beliefs bring them happiness, comfort or a security blanket, then why would I wish to take that from them UNLESS their beliefs are used to harm others? positing existence is not useless if it improves well-being of believers. It may be what you call a placebo effect but it still leads to good things.
Why did I call out atheists at Christmas? Because harm is not just the obvious wars, oppression and violence. Making one's granny who believes sad is harmful.
Let's turn the debate a bit. Do you believe that there is life, if not other civilizations, somewhere in the universe? We can't see them, we can't prove they exist yet the balance of probability should lead us to believe that they exist.
I have no evidence that leads me to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe, therefore I will live my life as though there is none. This is the truthful description of the present state of affairs and I believe the truth is always more preferable to the opposite.
Of course I will be open to new evidence and should more compelling evidence come to light I will change my opinion.
"Of course I will be open to new evidence and should more compelling evidence come to light I will change my opinion."
Are you sure about that, Harebell? Or are you just waiting to stand up and declare "There is now truly no god" next time someone claims to have found the Higgs boson particle?
Unlike those of the "faithy: inclination evidence is all I have to go on. If someone manages to explain how the supernatural exists, interacts with the natural and provides a reproducible method of showing this then fine. We have had nothing even close to this up until now.
As for the Higgs boson, I gather they are narrowing down it's possible mass to a pretty narrow range in CERN. But I'm pretty sure that whatever science discovers, religion will always find a gap into which they can insert their more increasingly marginal god.
Well put harebell. A fitting punctuation mark for this festive debate.
We should find a lighter topic for the new year like why NCAA football is more cost effective than imprisonment for America's youth.
Here is the true final word. Remember Nonny and Fugle, you don't get to invent your own words and terms.
http://youtu.be/7ncCNwbb5Jc
Post a Comment