yeh but we are in a position now to rightfully point and laugh at anyone who is in the flat earth society. If a God ever made itself known to us, clearly demonstrated its ability, showed how it created the universe, time space etc etc etc and there were those out there who denied clear demonstrable evidence then they in turn would have to be pointed and laughed at.
Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi
- Thread starter keyser87
- Start date
yeh but we are in a position now to rightfully point and laugh at anyone who is in the flat earth society. If a God ever made itself known to us, clearly demonstrated its ability, showed how it created the universe, time space etc etc etc and there were those out there who denied clear demonstrable evidence then they in turn would have to be pointed and laughed at.
Are we? Or are we privileged enough to be in that position because of our faith in science, rather then religion?
Well, think about it like this, there are people that claimed to have seen that evidence, and they're pointed and laughed at. I think that one needs to ask two questions, the first being that if you did actually see a miracle (i.e a person you know to be dead, roaming the streets), what's more likely, that the natural order has been suspended in your favour, or you're under a misapprehension? That question becomes even more urgent if you're hearing the story second hand.
The other is what belief you have, regarding God, already. The atheist position is, most of the time, not that there is no God, merely that there's no evidence to suggest that one exists. Or that no convincing argument for the existence of God exists, one that can resist the various scrutinies that should justly be applied to it. As such, if evidence where to reveal itself, of course one would believe it, but my above point would still stand. Nobody can take that be a position of faith, really.
The other is what belief you have, regarding God, already. The atheist position is, most of the time, not that there is no God, merely that there's no evidence to suggest that one exists. Or that no convincing argument for the existence of God exists, one that can resist the various scrutinies that should justly be applied to it. As such, if evidence where to reveal itself, of course one would believe it, but my above point would still stand. Nobody can take that be a position of faith, really.
There is no faith involved in science I'm afraid, and it's because of the E word that the religious loathe so much, evidence.
that old gem, we put faith in science? Well along with experiments in controlled situation, conduct the experiment on several occasions, evaluation of evidence, peer review and when we further understand things we change what we put in the science books to reflect such findings.
"Science adjusts its views. Based on what's observed, Faith is the denial of observation. So that belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin
the problem is that dawkins is wrong in how he defines atheism, it isn't a lack of belief that makes an atheist, but disbelief. dawkins is a great scientist but a lousy philosopher which is why he made such a mistake. when you understand and use the correct definition of atheism, the need for faith becomes clearer. there are threads in sc about this.
I disagree. Would I be right to assume you'd have to same problem with my equivalent atheism regarding Santa, and that you consider anything other than agnosticism regarding Santa and faries to be a leap of faith?
You seem to be missing the athiest vs agnostic point, which is odd given your obvious beliefs/thoughts on the subject.
An athiest actively disbelieves in God in the same way as a religious person believes in God. An agnostic looks at the situation, sees no evidence either way and either believes or disbelieves as is their wont, without actually following any belief.
I am an agnostic in that I don't actively believe or disbelieve the existence of a higher power. I don't think there is one, and I think it very silly to believe there is, but I don't actively disbelieve - if any of that makes sense.
I'd like there to be one, I just don't think there is. Almost agnostic theism, if you will.
No, an atheist does not say "there is no God", I've never encountered anybody that says or believes that. An atheist says that there's no evidence to suggest there is a God, and thus, there's no reason to believe that there is.
An agnostic believes that the likelihood of God's existence is exactly the same as the likelihood of God's non-existence, which I see to be unreasonable.
Going by the logic Dolph has put forward, one would be unreasonable to be an atheist regarding Santa, as there's no evidence for his existence, but no evidence for his non-existence either. You can make up your own mind about that, but there's certainly no faith involved in any of my beliefs regarding God.
An agnostic believes that the likelihood of God's existence is exactly the same as the likelihood of God's non-existence, which I see to be unreasonable.
Going by the logic Dolph has put forward, one would be unreasonable to be an atheist regarding Santa, as there's no evidence for his existence, but no evidence for his non-existence either. You can make up your own mind about that, but there's certainly no faith involved in any of my beliefs regarding God.
Like the science of climate change you mean? Where science has repeatedly been abused and misused to provide one agenda or another..
Then you are not an atheist. To say there is no proof in God, therefore you believe he does not exist, means you actively disbelieve in God as you don't also swing the other way (fnar).
The skepticism and understanding of lack of evidence either way sits firmly within agnosticism.
No, I am atheistic regarding Santa and the FSM. I am, however, a religious follower of Jedi.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Can you crush windpipes with a wave of your hand Gilly ?
Or perhaps pay for beer with Monopoly money with a quick wave and ' Monopoly money will do fine ' ?
Or perhaps pay for beer with Monopoly money with a quick wave and ' Monopoly money will do fine ' ?
Now that would be a skill worth having
.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Ah.
Freefaller. You must confront Freefaller. Then, and only then, a Jedi will you be.
Freefaller. You must confront Freefaller. Then, and only then, a Jedi will you be.
Now that would be a skill worth having
Ah, but that path leads to the dark side...
I'll take the first part of that as your answer.
If you're saying that you are (the equivalent of) an atheist regarding Santa and the Flying Spaghetti monster, then you've just nullified your previous argument. I don't think you should need evidence for something's non-existence before you're able to say that it doesn't exist.
EDIT: I just removed part of my post, as I realised that I've no idea what you think about the two entities mentioned.
Last edited: