if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
1. Something from Nothing
2. They know all things and are hence qualified to justify the creed "there is no God"
3. People that God has revealed himself to are liars.
You are wrong on all three assumptions. This has been pointed out numerous times before on this thread, yet you fail to comprehend. Continue putting atheists in a little box so it's easier for you to dismiss our stance. If that's what makes you feel better about yourself.
many are not sure or deny that wts is a dangerous mind-control cult.
here is some food for thought on the "dangerous mind-control" part of that.
(cut and pasted from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122936768817 jehovah's disfellowshipped witnesses/facebook).
Nice compilation....thanks OTWO
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
Typical circular reasoning, Psychotic Parrot. ;)
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
Farkel, you have no logical argument here, other than to call my testimony a lie.... which is a basic requirement of atheism and is logically consistent with your premise.
Again you try to shoe-horn atheists into a box. You are as wrong about this as you are about all atheists being of the "strong" or "positive" variety.
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
Born again Christians live a life of total testing out God. When I do X or, follow Y path, God responds thusly or doesn't respond thusly. They are able to prove (through testable and repeatable scenarios) to themselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
Someone prays (wishes) for something. If the wish comes true, it must have been God answering the prayer. If the wish did not come true, it was still God who knew better than to answer your wish as you requested (for myriad possible reasons). So no matter what happens, it's proof of God.
This to you is testable, repeatable proof of God? Wow. I hope your profession has nothing to do with the sciences.
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
I can only speak from a Christian perspective; God has spoken, through the Bible and through Jesus. Jesus left instructions for his disciples to make more disciples and teach them the things he taught them.
How would you answer a member of the LDS church who believes God spoke through the Book of Mormon and through Joseph Smith?
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
But what if there is?
This god would be unknowable for we still have no empirical evidence even supporting its existence let alone its nature. Each step in that direction takes us further and further into imagination land. Nothing wrong with imagining, but we can't honestly claim any sort of objective certitude with our guesses.
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
For Perry and others that don't understand why anecdotes alone are insufficient to convince skeptics:
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
For the atheist, Design and "Eye-Witness" testimony MUST be rejected out of hand.
No, it's that these subjective things alone are insufficient at proving that god exists. We need something empirical. We demand the same for everything else that supposedly affects our reality, so why would we make a special exception for this?
And "playing games with dictionaries"? Perry, you are laughable.
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
The word 'probably' is key. That means they don't have the evidence to say 'there's absolutely no God'. And because they don't have the evidence they're working blind.
It's been pointed out to you in this thread at least once and you seem to be missing it. Scientifically speaking, you cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that no gods exist, just as it is impossible to prove there is no planet somewhere else in our universe that is exactly like ours in every detail (same plants, animals, humans, etc).
You cannot prove a negative.
Despite this limitation of not being able to prove negatives, science continues to progress by leaps and bounds. So much for "working blind."
Tell me this: is there anything that affects our reality that we as humans generally accept without a shred of empirical evidence, other than religious ideas? I can't think of any. The fact that we are expected to make an exception when it comes to religious claims is a perfect example of the "special pleading" logical fallacy.
