Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why wouldn't atheists think that? Plenty of current atheists were at one time religious. Something made them change? Logical arguments is as good a reason as any.
They need a constant and reliable source of money to carry their mandates forward?
Atheists, on the other hand, need nothing, since amongst other facts, it's not a religion. In any measurable way!
Cheers, friends!
Yes. That's it. I don't so much want to see organized religion vanish Though I wouldn't care if it did, but I want it shorn of wealth and power. It has huge resources to call on to keep fooling people and huge influence to make secular authorities toe the line. I watch the pretty obvious business school method of the present Archbishop of cant in trying to make Religion look like the party of the people.
I am curious why. I see so often that atheists don't understand why "logic and reason" fail time and time again. Atheists don't get it.
I suppose this logic your are using applies to both, atheists and theists. They see logic based on their views. However, both are just as human and will allow their biases, personalities, backgrounds, etc. influence their logic. They both may claim being logical and reasonable but still fall short. Both sides do not understand how come the other side does not see the logic. To me each may try to use logic but as I said it is clouded by their own frailties and use it to suit their views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
The IT is this: The Supernatural is not verifiable by the Natural. It takes a lot of work to convince someone that God ain't real, when said person has experienced God (usually more than once and on an ongoing basis). I cannot prove to anyone that I love my wife...not in any objective evidence based way. I can go thru the motions and act like I love her-heck she even believes me when I tell her. Although at times she does say, "If you really loved me, you would..." Yet I insist I actually love her. Can't prove it-oh well.
Good point. You may not be able to prove the existence of God or some intelligence higher than us. In the example of you love. Your wife may state that you love her as a fact when in reality she can't prove it 100%. This what you may call faith. She may base that faith on circumstantial evidence and deductive, indcutive logic or both. To me the same can apply to the existence of a higher being. It is the best conclusion you can make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
Also, please note that if your premise is faulty then one's logical reasoning fails. Yes...I am talking about the premise that God Does Not Exist. When you start off with that premise, your "logical" argument fails with us theists who know God is real. Over and over. Thus it doesn't work. You may as well insist that I don't love my wife, cuz I can't prove it and I know you are wrong despite logical reasoning.
In all fairness, atheists logic does have validity. If they say "Prove God exists" it is a correct request. Here is where I see a major flaw in atheits though. There is no doubt in my mind that in many areas of their lives they live lives based on faith in something due to circumstances or the information they have in front of them (bounded rationality). The same thing when they vituperate theists for believing in something that may not be 100% percent proven. They tend to be disdainful to those that believe in a God as if it is a cancer. Granted, many people in the name of God have done horrible things, no doubt about it. However, theists views have had their horrible concequences also, maybe not as obvious thought. A truly open and fair mind will realize that people can use philosophical views to do horrible things and see that the philosophical view may not have anything to do with it. People do rationalize using philosophical views to excuse their actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
I am convinced that those of you who decided that God is not real did a fine job of convincing yourselves. Good. Just don't think your reasoning will work on others who know God. I've heard it all and when I hear it here, I go: but you guys are assuming there is no God when you say "oh they just have a need" or "oh they were raised in a Christian home" or whatever psychological reason you cite. Like we evolved with a god-need. Puleese And it sure doesn't help when every piece of evidence is summarily dismissed-like several items I have offered up over the years-and the need to take the "anything, but God stance". That was my parent's stance. Can't be God must be some way we can explain it away-not unlike Scrooge when he dismissed a ghostly vision as a result of eating a bad piece of meat in "A Christmas Carol".
Again, in all fairness, prove that God exists. Don't just say the typical wording of "I know....", "I experience it....". If you can do that, then be honest and admit so. I do not see anything wrong in stating and showing how you have concluded that a higher being exists and that your evidence may be the most acceptable conclusion. To me it makes sense as I have also read a bit on logic and science related to this issue. I will say I try to be open minded and declare that atheists do have valid points to look into and consider.
Personally, I believe there is a higher intelligence. Am I using the Bible to prove the existence, not at all. I am not going to defend or agree on your belief based on what the Bible says either. I have no interests in praying to such being nor trying to please.
I will admit that I do have deep interest in reading the Bible from the historical angle and do have great admiration for many of the philosophical/moral point you can gather from it but that is it, but so in other philosophical/religious views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
I am convinced that it is easy to deny the spiritual. The concrete world is so real and solid. So I understand, but all of the nontheists, who became spiritual or Christian, that I personally know and have read about had one thing in common. They were open to new ideas and possibilities.
I do not share your comment. There are many theists that are extremists on this view and are very very close to new ideas and possibilities. You used the same wording I see atheists make in this forum when talking about theists. This wording to some degree does turn me off on both sides. Both sides have their arrogant ones that resort to ad hominens of some sort when expressing their views to contradict the other side.
To me both sides have their members that declare they are open minded, logical, etc. Both sides may claim they express their views to share and yet their wording is arrogant, disdainful, etc. which to me proves all they want to do is put down the other side.
Both sides remind me of many Airbone Soldiers I met in the past when I was in the Army. There were those that had the mentality that if you were not Airbone/Infantry you were not a Soldier. Also, if you were not in such field they felt they had the right to put you down and treat you like a second class Soldier. I did meet many that were not that way and treated all Soldiers with respect. One day an Airbone old crusty Soldier made a comment that to this day applies in other areas. He said "Don't pay attention to those guys. Many of them were neglected children and now they treat others because they simply try to boost their own self esteem". Wow, what a wise observation!
The same applies in this issue. Those that act as if the other side is ignorant, stupid, close minded and put them down because they believe in such a way, may simple have the same issues that Airbone Soldiers mentioned. Take care.
You may not be able to prove the existence of God or some intelligence higher than us. In the example of you love. Your wife may state that you love her as a fact when in reality she can't prove it 100%. This what you may call faith. She may base that faith on circumstantial evidence and deductive, indcutive logic or both. To me the same can apply to the existence of a higher being. It is the best conclusion you can make.
I have no problem with faith taking me that last 1% or so of the way. In other words if I am 99% sure my wife loves me, I'll take the small leap of faith to act like I'm 100% sure of her love. With god it's the other way around and then some. Religious faith asks me to leap 99.9% of the way as I can only see about a 0.1% chance of such a thing. On a good day. When we're talking about some generic deist-god and not anything put forward in detail by, say, Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
Here is where I see a major flaw in atheits though. There is no doubt in my mind that in many areas of their lives they live lives based on faith in something due to circumstances or the information they have in front of them (bounded rationality). The same thing when they vituperate theists for believing in something that may not be 100% percent proven.
I hope my explanations of how we see the odds above has helped you to see why there is no real comparison here. I don't bother to check the Internet every day to see if the sun bothered to come up, as the odds of that not happening (and me still being alive to wonder about it!) are such that it's not worth the effort or concern. Faith is a legitimate shortcut to searching for validating empirical evidence, for small and inconsequential gaps in knowledge or understanding. I'm willing to risk that my doctor is competent even though I can't absolutely personally verify that absent getting my own medical degree in the same specialty, amassing some experience, and then interviewing him extensively. That's why we have degrees, certifications, medical boards, state requirements, and the testimony of other patients and other publicly available information -- so I can assure myself to a reasonable degree, approaching 99%, that this guy is qualified to operate on my heart or brain or whatever. Faith over that 1% uncertainty is legitimate, else we would never decide about anything. But faith for the purposes of papering over 99.9% uncertainty (or about anything of consequence, even 30% uncertainty) is just ill-advised.
I don't try to argue theists out of their faith. I will point out instances where their faith makes no sense, is harmful, or hypocritical. What you do with that info is entirely up to you and I lose no sleep over your decision, whatever it may be,
I will point out that religious faith is rapidly declining in western society. Every time polls come out, the number of 'nones', people who profess no religious affiliation, increases. This is true in virtually every country. So even though most atheists do not actively try to decibvert people, our defense of our position is influencing the population at large.
Most of the arguing I do, at least in person, is me trying to get the proselytizing zombies to leave me alone. I don't care what YOU believe, but I despise being accosted because of my lack of belief.
I guess the other complementary question would be, "Why do theists think they can talk me out of disbelief"? Do they really think that knocking on my door Saturday morning is going to get me to go to church on Sunday?
Theists have no interest in reason and logic. Atheists have no interest in putting your entire life in a the hands of faith.
Why does it always have to be "us vs. them"? Why can't people live their life and not be concerned with who believes and who doesn't believe?
If being Christian makes you be a better person because of faith in scripture...Great! If being atheist makes you a better person because you believe in reason and logic as it applies to relationships...Great!
I guess the other complementary question would be, "Why do theists think they can talk me out of disbelief"? Do they really think that knocking on my door Saturday morning is going to get me to go to church on Sunday?
No. What they really hope for is to cull a few kids for the Sunday School or VBS program or whatever from parents who feel vaguely guilty that they aren't religious and want someone to provide that for their kids. Or a few adults who are at a vulnerable moment, hurting in some way that the church claims to salve. Or some joiners, newly arrived in the neighborhood and wanting that feeling of "belonging" to a group. Or someone that's highly extroverted and not too picky about how they get their social needs met.
The ones that are really sincere about evangelization and not doing it under duress are closer to what you're describing but in my experience they are actually fairly rare. Most door to door canvassers are just being guilted into a marketing program that trades mostly on many people's unwillingness to seem rude or opposed to motherhood, apple pie and Jesus.
When I am unfortunate enough to get a Mormon or JW or evangelical Christian who actually wants to argue their faith with me, I simply state I'm not interested and close the door on them before they have a chance to say anything in the line of "yes, but ..."; I've never had one come back.
I have heard of people inviting such persons into their home just for sport, but that's not my cup of tea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Here's why.
Yet I insist I actually love her. Can't prove it-oh well.
And it sure doesn't help when every piece of evidence is summarily dismissed-like several items I have offered up over the years-and the need to take the "anything, but God stance". That was my parent's stance. Can't be God must be some way we can explain it away-not unlike Scrooge when he dismissed a ghostly vision as a result of eating a bad piece of meat in "A Christmas Carol".