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.
because the something more to the Christian is God and most atheist simply cannot agree that the something more could be God thus all they can say is the something more is we don't know.
Thus the Christian has an answer to the something more and the atheist does not.
And that is why they don't like your something more scenario AA because your something more gives the Christian a foot hold and most atheist just cannot have that, even thou your something more is an accurate assessment.
I think you have it backwards. An "answer" unsupported by any evidence is not an answer to anything. First of all, there is no definition of "something more", so you don't even get to the evidence portion of the game. Which of course: there is none. And never is.
So no. The actual issue comes down to intellectual honesty. The atheist is willing to admit to what they don't know and STOP THERE. Where the theist just pulls "answers", if you can call them that, out of their.... you know... that thing. Even though they don't know have a foggy clue about what they are talking about, and have 3,000 different religions that contradict each other, and often want to kill each other over differences in "doctrine".
Meanwhile atheists just say: "I don't know the answer to that question. Let's research it and see if we can find out".
Intellectual honesty vs pulling things out of things.
because the something more to the Christian is God and most atheist simply cannot agree that the something more could be God thus all they can say is the something more is we don't know.
Thus the Christian has an answer to the something more and the atheist does not.
And that is why they don't like your something more scenario AA because your something more gives the Christian a foot hold and most atheist just cannot have that, even thou your something more is an accurate assessment.
I see it as Christians not liking the 'something more' because they lose a foothold.
And as Marc says; we don't know what that something more is but "Let's research it and see if we can find out".
because the something more to the Christian is God and most atheist simply cannot agree that the something more could be God thus all they can say is the something more is we don't know.
That would be agnostics who do not know. We do not believe, for various reasons (subconsciously or consciously).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Thus the Christian has an answer to the something more and the atheist does not.
We have an answer (natural forces) that Christians have to minimize, ignore or compartmentalize.
From our vantage point, the most you can say is that whatever they actually saw, they believed they saw what they wrote. Their state of mind, state of knowledge, and beliefs about reality formed the context from within which they recorded the events as I have previously pointed out with the following analogy.
The following descriptions compare the way a modern man would interpret what he has seen with the way the same event would have been interpreted by a Viking intellectual. First, the actual event as it would be described in the modern interpretation:
A man lands a helicopter in a clearing of the forest, takes out a .45 caliber automatic pistol, shoots it at a rabbit, then returns to the helicopter and flies away into the clouds.
The Viking, on the other hand, would probably describe it in a manner similar to the following:
Thor came hunting in a flying chariot with his hammer that throws lightning bolts, and then went back to his home in the clouds.
It is important to recognize that the Viking's interpretation is not the result of low intelligence, but is the result of a lack of valid information. The previous description would probably have been produced by a Viking genius, as long as he lacked any knowledge of gunpowder and helicopters.
Except that there is no evidence of any creator, and overwhelming evidence that everything in existence is a result of natural causes. Let’s go where the evidence leads, if we care about what is true.
well so far the evidence leads to we don't know, at least as far as the atheist worldview.
Let take the atheist worldview and the Christian worldview as a whole and look at them.
The Christian worldview has an answer to life's big questions, such as how or where did the universe come from, how did life come about on earth, why are we here and where we are going.
The atheist worldview has no answer to life's big questions they don't know how or where the universe comes from, they don't know how life came about on earth, they have no answer to why we are here and have no hope for anything after the here and now.
And you guys really believe your worldview that "does not know" is more logical then the Christian worldview that does know, really?
Is it really logical for the Christian to leave their worldview that has answers and hope for tomorrow for a worldview that has no answers and no hope for tomorrow?
Except that there is only one reality, and departing from it with mysticism and fantasy is not a productive "world view". All "world views" should be dedicated to actually viewing the world, the one that exists, instead of fabricating others to mollify fear.
such as the multiverse, oh but wait a minute I forgot that science not fabrication
I think you have it backwards. An "answer" unsupported by any evidence is not an answer to anything. First of all, there is no definition of "something more", so you don't even get to the evidence portion of the game. Which of course: there is none. And never is.
So no. The actual issue comes down to intellectual honesty. The atheist is willing to admit to what they don't know and STOP THERE. Where the theist just pulls "answers", if you can call them that, out of their.... you know... that thing. Even though they don't know have a foggy clue about what they are talking about, and have 3,000 different religions that contradict each other, and often want to kill each other over differences in "doctrine".
Meanwhile atheists just say: "I don't know the answer to that question. Let's research it and see if we can find out".
Intellectual honesty vs pulling things out of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I see it as Christians not liking the 'something more' because they lose a foothold.
And as Marc says; we don't know what that something more is but "Let's research it and see if we can find out".
no the atheist or at least most I have come across do not say "they don't know and STOP THERE" because if they don't know and stop there they cannot turn around and say believing in God is illogical because what they don't know could actually be God.
So then if The actual issue comes down to intellectual honesty as you say then what you don't know could be God.
That would be agnostics who do not know. We do not believe, for various reasons (subconsciously or consciously).
are you saying then that the atheist does in fact know? and every atheist I have run across on this form says they do not rely on belief but on facts. You just undercut years of atheist work in disregarding the christian belief as being illogical and idiotic.
Quote:
We have an answer (natural forces) that Christians have to minimize, ignore or compartmentalize
are you saying then that the atheist does in fact know? and every atheist I have run across on this form says they do not rely on belief but on facts. You just undercut years of atheist work in disregarding the christian belief as being illogical and idiotic.
and where did these natural forces come from?
I think they are trying for a social change. Brute fact isn't part of the strategy for that social change. In fact, brute fact actually hurts the society they are trying to start here in the states.
The problem is they are 1/2 right. we do need some social change and religions need to be controlled.
For us, that really don't make choices based on god and religion, we have to decide if we are going to accept people changing how the universe works based on "their wishes on scocial change.".
we need history and social context for any holy book when talking about what they were saying. We need the exact same information on anti-theist. where are they from and what happened to them to form such an anti-god stance.
I say that due toi the fact that anti-god is quite a different stance. Its not based on science as much as personal emotion. and when people are proud to be anti-theist, thats a red flag.
when they want to remove brute fact from a discussion on "social change" that should trigger a response in all of us. Believers and non believers.
such as the multiverse, oh but wait a minute I forgot that science not fabrication
Depends what you mean by a multiverse. In a sense of science fiction, yes, it is often a fabrication, unless the author is referencing hard science.
In the context of theoretical physics, however, it's a product of mathematics. Whilst imagination plays a significant role in how that product is interpreted, it is nonetheless far from fabrication. Neither is it a claim to some absolute truth. Any scientist worth their salt would tell you that a multiverse hypothesis is one of many proposed explanation and not a claim to certain knowledge of multiverse existence.
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.
