Atheism, the absence of someone to pray to. (page 7)

beksbks

Girl I was just gonna apologize for being a liar!!!

This place! Grrrr!

cyberjesus

Tammy I was just quoting you.. didnt mean it like that. My point is that if evidence is only good for you but not for anybody else then what good is for us?

tec

Oh... I didn't mean it like that either :) I didn't think you were saying I couldn't share. I just meant that I could share without feeling this burden of 'justifying' my beliefs.

As for what good it could be for you... my evidence is good for me, but sharing it could be good for others: to perhaps be open-minded to certain possibilities (that doesn't mean accept, but not to dismiss out of hand the experience); or perhaps to help you understand another pov (which is always a good thing, since we often show more respect when we understand someone else's point of view); or perhaps to recognize something similar in yourself. Or perhaps someone is seeking Christ or God, and a few words of encouragement or experience can help them on their chosen path.

Tammy

Qcmbr

Tammy - when I hear people claiming personal evidence that is so powerful as to allow someone to ignore fact and logic but is so special or subjective that it can't be plainly shared in a public discussion forum I smell a rat. These discussions get very one sided if one person thinks they are playing poker but won't reveal their cards but argues that they win while all the other players have laid theirs out and by simple deduction can see that no remaining cards would allow the stonewaller to be victorious.

If you have had actual physical experiences (a burning bush, an angelic visit, or you've been to Narnia through a wardrobe) then I can agree that you have good cause for belief. If you have had some subjective mental experience ( you've dreamed of a statue with miry clay feet, you feel all warm and fuzzy when contemplating the atonement, you felt at peace when praying) I can understand why you believe but do not accept that as a good cause for belief.

Most believers will try to follow the concept of not throwing pearls before swine, as a cop out to avoid exposing those pearls as of no value, but will conversely leap into the pig pen and wrestle all day to justify themselves to the world on the basis that one would be crazy to wrestle pigs about the value of pearls if one did not in fact have those pearls.

All bluff and bluster until the cards are laid down I'm afraid.

Joey Jo-Jo

beksbks wrote Joey no, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.

belief definition :-

1 The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another:

2 Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

3 Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

You believe in men, in science so it'a belief, I think you mean a lack of faith which is different.

beksbks wrote No Joey, belief implies some sort of action. I just don't believe. Would you say that those who don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, hold a belief? I wouldn't. You are defining it from a believers point of view (by that I don't mean that you yourself are a believer). If you have a glass of water on a desk, and you have another desk without a glass of water, do you describe that desk as being absent a glass of water? Of course not, it simply is.

Sorry that word means different things, according to http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861687496/belief.html it can also mean faith in God/s, it just didn't sound right to me as to my understanding atheism and religion are the same thing, atheism resorts to pseudoscience to make the point that god does not exist (they have a strong case against religions I agree but they dont have proof that a supreme being/s did not create the very first thing in the emptiness of the universe) , same with religion, it would be great if Jesus came back down and wrote a book that is actually inspired instead of this imperfect group of books called the bible but we are stuck with man's word.

bohm

atheism resorts to pseudoscience to make the point that god does not exist (they have a strong case against religions I agree but they dont have proof that a supreme being/s did not create the very first thing in the emptiness of the universe)

A-ha. First off, scientists never prove things, they provide evidence for certain ideas, so you are allready misuing the scientific vocabulary.

Second off, you would find that most scientists who reject the God-did-it hypothesis do so because they find there is little evidence in its favor. Is that what you think is wrong?

Joey Jo-Jo

Qcmbr wrote If you have had actual physical experiences (a burning bush, an angelic visit, or you've been to Narnia through a wardrobe) then I can agree that you have good cause for belief. If you have had some subjective mental experience ( you've dreamed of a statue with miry clay feet, you feel all warm and fuzzy when contemplating the atonement, you felt at peace when praying) I can understand why you believe but do not accept that as a good cause for belief

I have seen things that can not be scientifically proven, yet recently I have been looking into a logical explanation, hypnagogia seems to be it but more than one person saw what I saw so it could very much be real.

Joey Jo-Jo

bohm wrote A-ha. First off, scientists never prove things, they provide evidence for certain ideas, so you are allready misuing the scientific vocabulary.

Second off, you would find that most scientists who reject the God-did-it hypothesis do so because they find there is little evidence in its favor. Is that what you think is wrong?

Scientists do prove things, read carl sagans book demon haunted world and we will see who is misusing the scientific vocabulary.

Could you name some of these scientists who reject God because they found very little evidence?

bohm

Scientists do prove things,

then we are not using the word in the same sence. can you mention a physical theory which has been "proven"?

science can provide evidence for a position until it is so weighty it can be assumed to be true; this is often abbreviated as proven, but it is bad terminology which can be exploited by eg. creationists and theists.

Could you name some of these scientists who reject God because they found very little evidence?

Well lets just start with Steven Weinberg.

tec

Qcmbr - are you speaking to me specifically, or in general?:

These discussions get very one sided if one person thinks they are playing poker but won't reveal their cards but argues that they win while all the other players have laid theirs out and by simple deduction can see that no remaining cards would allow the stonewaller to be victorious.

I've never done this, but I can understand the frustration on both sides. The first - because of course if you are going to argue that you have evidence, it is frustrating to those listening if you don't throw down. The second - because unless you are already a believer (and most times not even then) no one ever believes the evidence you throw down, and do in fact trample it.

If you have had some subjective mental experience I can understand why you believe but do not accept that as a good cause for belief.

Which is why I said you and others like you don't or can't or won't accept as evidence what I accept as evidence, or think it's good enough. Understanding should generate mutual respect and tolerance, so I think that is also a good reason for sharing belief as I said above... even if I the other person cannot accept it for themselves.

Tammy

Atheism, the absence of someone to pray to.

Share this