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.
But that is not the way many atheists say it. They - and not all - contend that if I can't show concrete evidence of what I believe, I am stupid to believe it. To them, not having proof (or strong evidence) is NOT an option.
Charles
Perhaps it's not quite that. It's more that, having pointed out that inadequate evidence or personal preference may be enough to keep a theory in mind as a possibility - even a highly attractive one - it is not enough to base a firm belief on. And when that logicality is pointed out and rejected on the grounds of persona prefeence or 'Faith', then that is illogical and unreasonable.
I think that when the 'stupid' idea is bruited about, illogical and unreasonable is what is meant.
People like this are wonderful people to know. They are all for diversity of thought as long as you agree with them.
Charles
They are. We love new ideas and theories. We look at them and see whether they hold water. Unfortunately, Mystic disappoints. He never comes up with any explanation other than: 'It's obvious except to atheists, naturalists, evolutionists, atheists, scientists, materialists, atheists and atheists. And you're all idiots.'
It bewildering, amusing, frustrating and in the end, just tiresome and boring.
They are. We love new ideas and theories. We look at them and see whether they hold water. Unfortunately, Mystic disappoints. He never comes up with any explanation
If you refuse to educate yourself about universal field theories . . . you can't possibly understand my explanation. If you refuse to explore the shortcomings of materialist explanations of consciousness as a composite form of energy . . . you can't possibly understand my explanation. If you refuse to develop your own meditative skills to experience the mental state I describe . . . you can't possibly understand my explanation nor the basis of my certainty about it.
Why does that bother you so much? If you don't need a reason to believe what you believe, there's no need to worry when other people point out this fact. Or are you truly not happy with this situation and blaming the messenger?
It doesn't bother me in that I have to get approval to believe, and it isn't even a religion thing. It is more of a respect/arrogant type of thing. With many athiests - I would say not the majority - seem to thing they expect you to listen to their position and to consider it, but they won't afford you the same courtesy. Whether or not someone believes in God or not is not the issue for me. It is the closed-minded people (and there are many on BOTH sides) who won't even consider that what they believe might have some truth to it.
I am a science-minded person with astronomy being my guiding interest. Sometimes I will look outside and say "what if it all just happened" then my mind goes into, "if the big bang did happen, where did the stuff that expanded come from". If it was created my something or someone, where did IT come from and so on. I can't stop thinking there had to be a first SOMETHING. That is why I can never rule out God. BTW, I am not saying that YOU have, I am just making a point.
The point of Christianity is this: If I truly believed that there was a bad thing (whatever it might be) coming to get you or kidnap you or to adverely effect you in some negative way, it is my responsibilty to try to tell you about it. My duty is not to drag you kicking and screaming away from it, just to warn you and let you make up your mind for yourself. I know many "Christians" try to force things upon the population, but that is NOT what they are supposed to do!
You know, after all the posts, I can't remember what the original post topic was.
If you refuse to educate yourself about universal field theories . . . you can't possibly understand my explanation. If you refuse to explore the shortcomings of materialist explanations of consciousness as a composite form of energy . . . you can't possibly understand my explanation. If you refuse to develop your own meditative skills to experience the mental state I describe . . . you can't possibly understand my explanation nor the basis of my certainty about it.
I'm still waiting for you to educate us. I have carefully followed your posts and they seem to add up to nothing but jargon ending up with 'The universe is intelligent. We should call that God and you are all idiots if you don't take my word for it'.
I'd really love something more convincing because, in principle, I'm not opposed to an 'Intelligent universe' in some degree. As an atheist I just don't believe in gods and by that I mean personal gods.
I might hazard a guess that you will now be tempted not to explain but to dicker about terms and definitions.
Sorry to see your asinine dismissal of the entirety of my post to quote mine a single supportive phrase.
You said that it wouldn't change anything except to give you vindication, which was expressed through various irrelevant insults, which I left off the quote since they were unimportant to the argument. I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I gave your idea some thought. I asked you some questions about it to try to determine what the point would be, and you yourself admitted that it would make no difference if science adopted your revised vocabulary. Which makes your whole argument fall apart. When I demonstrate this, you adopt your preferred fallback position of issuing personal attacks instead of finding some way to defend your idea in a civil manner. Sorry to say that I am not surprised. I am still open to understanding why it is that you insist that science should change to suit you. Other than "because I said so" which so far seems to be all you've got and is entirely unconvincing.
You said that it wouldn't change anything except to give you vindication, which was expressed through various irrelevant insults, which I left off the quote since they were unimportant to the argument. I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I gave your idea some thought. I asked you some questions about it to try to determine what the point would be, and you yourself admitted that it would make no difference if science adopted your revised vocabulary. Which makes your whole argument fall apart. When I demonstrate this, you adopt your preferred fallback position of issuing personal attacks instead of finding some way to defend your idea in a civil manner. Sorry to say that I am not surprised. I am still open to understanding why it is that you insist that science should change to suit you. Other than "because I said so" which so far seems to be all you've got and is entirely unconvincing.
YOU have framed the issue as a request that science change . . . NOT I. Science does fine . . . except when its supposed proponents step beyond the data and bounds of their findings and promote an aggressive atheism . . AS IF it is the only "natural" and scientific conclusion. THAT is my beef. I AM a scientist . . . so I have no issues with the conduct of science. I wish to remove the artificial distinction . . . (promulgated during religious oppression of science) . . . between God and the object of science's investigations. Prior to that oppression there was no such distinction and there is no justification for it now.
I wish to remove the artificial distinction . . . (promulgated during religious oppression of science) . . . between God and the object of science's investigations. Prior to that oppression there was no such distinction and there is no justification for it now.
Of course there is justification for that distinction, as the words describe different concepts. The word "god" implies a DIETY. The word "nature" does not.
Of course there is justification for that distinction, as the words describe different concepts. The word "god" implies a DIETY. The word "nature" does not.
Please help me to understand the basis for this distinction without using any particular religion's BELIEFS about God . . . remember "If we BELIEVE a dog's tail is a leg . . . how many legs does a dog have?"
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.
