by passwordprotected 232 Replies latest jw friends
Here's the real gaff for atheists, THEIR PREMISE REQUIRES DELUSIONS OF OMNIPOTENCE in order to try and make the premise work for them. It also requires the discrediting of Christian testimony.
But God's habit many times is to simply give people what they really want, thereby allowing a participation in your own destiny.
No delusions of omnipotence here then?
Plus of course aren't you discrediting the testimony of atheists?
What a tool.
besty,
You have failed to provide the connection to this topic with your question. Perhaps, if you could establish some coherence and relevancy, your questions will be answered. If you choose not to, then don't be surprised if certain things are simply ignored.
It's not personal by the way.
I'm an ass. Perry's a tool.
Excellent, when's milk break? When is recess over?
double post.
Plus of course aren't you discrediting the testimony of atheists?
I guess they do have a testimony that they have no testimony.... thanks for pointing that out. I can receive that.
Here's my favorite -theism...does not require blind faith...and is the most logical conclusion to the entire debate
I'm an ass. Perry's a tool.
So are you denying the hypocrisy in claiming that atheists have delusions of omnipotence and then in the next breath claiming to speak for god? That's not very christian is it?
So are you denying the hypocrisy in claiming that atheists have delusions of omnipotence and then in the next breath claiming to speak for god? That's not very christian is it?
Strawmen are rife.
I'm calling you out for name calling, is what I'm doing. It's always a cheap shot.
| Of course, going back to the OP, if we take Gould at his word, science can't be used to prove or disprove God. Therefore I'd suggest that atheism is a faith and a blind one. |
Your conclusions just don't follow, even if we accept Gould at his word. Atheistic arguments don't have to entail science. Science has given the contemporary atheist access to a more robust world view than prior generations had available. Humans naturally prefer answers to unknowns and it is clear humans often prefer an incorrect answer to an open question.
You misrepresent Gould's charity toward faith holders. If God were to exist beyond nature, then he couldn't be subjected to the scientific method. God's existing beyond nature, however, entails other concessions for theists and the problem is that most theists are unwilling to make these concessions. If God's existence is claimed on the basis of natural evidence vis a vis personal experiences, then this God does not superintend on nature, this God is enmeshed in nature and the querying theist has lost his position:
P1 = If God exists, then he exists beyond nature.
P2 = Science studies nature.
P3 = The assumption that it is possible something exists beyond nature.
C1 = God, given P1, were he to exist, could not be studied by science.
P4 = All evidences, claims and experiences relating to theology occur naturally in the universe.
P5 = Anything which occurs naturally in the universe can, in principle, be studied by science.
C2 = From P4, any evidence or claims made about the existance of a god can be studied by science.
C3 = Any evidence or claim with a natural explanation does not pertain to, or else entails the falsity, of P1.
P4 = The category of personal divine experiences has a natural explanation.
C4 = Personal divine experiences do not pertain to, or else entail the falsity, of P1.
It seems to me that there is no need to play word games with either the common meanings of atheism or faith. Any individual could adequately define their usage in the context of debate. Anyone seriously engaging this question should use some common philosophical definitions of words such as:
1. Knowledge, truth, etc.
And use the psychological definition of
2. Belief, experience
And the scientific sense of
3. Nature, probability.
One should also understand that dictionaries attempt to capture the vernacular. Philosophers, scientists and theists all must actively define their language when framing a discussion. Or else you're just using words improperly to give the illusion of a strong argument. For example:
P1: I know when I've had an experience.
P2: All my experiences have been real events.
P3: All real events are true.
P4: I've experienced the non-existance of all gods.
P5: I know that no gods exist.
C1: The truth of my experience entails the falsity of theism.
You can have false knowledge and experiences which do not accurately reflect reality.
In reference to why people such as myself become atheistic in are era, involves greatly on the evidence and understanding of where , why and how
the spiritual gods first were introduced into the human consciousness.
Examining closely many of the ancient cultures that had evolved in the past it becomes clear of the their ignorance of are world of which we live.
Essentially gods very much had to exist for that was only their obtainable answer presented to them.
Even in the bible there are statements that if a person were to look at god that person would surely die for doing so because of the brightness
of his glory, sounds similar to person looking at the sun doesn't. God resides up in the heaven with myriad of angels at his side , kind of sounds like
someone looking up at the stars doesn't ?
And yes in many of those cultures the sun was indeed the focus of many of their worshiping deities.
Humanity to this day still socially lives off many of those ancient stories of reason , the 7 days of the week as being as one.
The indifferent importance of which deity you worship to and how you worship that deity has come to society's attention
with the recent violent actions of Muslim radical extremism. These recent situations to me are the probable reason many people with atheistic views
are now coming out and saying why GOD ?
In foresight perhaps then, god ideology might very well be a redundant and dangerous of one to social hold on to.
Applying social guidance and direction through the voices of the ( ancient ) spirits seems to be dangerous and detrimental to mans progressive advancement.
Man's gods on earth are most likely just imaginary ones spurned out of mans ignorance of the world we live in, what gods that may be out in the universe should
left open to speculation.
Therefore right now it might be better for mankind now to progress along with humanistic ideologies rather than spiritualistic ones.
