atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic) - Page 9

Tiberius · #81 07-19-2006, 03:51 AM

But for all believers, the parts that state that God exists, that jesus lived etc are to be taken literally.

Anyway, I can't see how we can seriously consider the Bible to be legitimate if we are to take it with the attitude "All parts of the Bible are completely literal, except for the parts that could leave behind any kind of evidence; those parts are just metaphorical."

Scuba Pete · #82 07-19-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiberius

For believers, it's meant to be taken literally! it should be a treasure map.

You don't tell me what a believer should believe, and I won't tell you what an atheist should believe. If you have to over generalize, do it with your own belief system.

This believer sees the Bible as man's Blog of trying to understand God. They have taken some huge liberties, blaming God for this and that, assigning God human motives and the list could go on. It's really cool to see God just keep reaching out and trying to gently correct them. He even sent his son to straighten things out, and most still miss that Love is the answer to all of our problems.

Archaeopteryx · #83 07-20-2006, 03:11 PM

Neither gnosticism nor agnosticism is a position between atheism and theism.

Theist - One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

Atheist - One who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Gnostic - One who believes that knowledge can be obtained about a god or gods.

Agnostic - One who does not believe that knowledge can be obtained about a god or gods.

One who assertively denies the existence of a god or gods is, by association, an atheist, but the position that a god or gods do not exist is not a position of atheism; the position is irrelevant.

In regards to an earlier post by Halcyon, to say that "[T]he evidence for [a] deity is not non-existent; we simply don't have the understanding to see the evidence for what it is," is self-refuting. If the material with which we have been presented has not been shown through our understandings to evince the existence of a deity, then no evidence for a deity has been found. Just as we may logically arrive at the conclusion that because no deity has been found, there is no such deity; we make also logically arrive at the conclusion that because no evidence of a deity has been found, there is no such evidence.

Conclusively, given that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods, the intrinsic, passive position of atheism is the only logical position.

Halcyon · #84 07-21-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

In regards to an earlier post by Halcyon, to say that "[T]he evidence for [a] deity is not non-existent; we simply don't have the understanding to see the evidence for what it is," is self-refuting. If the material with which we have been presented has not been shown through our understandings to evince the existence of a deity, then no evidence for a deity has been found. Just as we may logically arrive at the conclusion that because no deity has been found, there is no such deity; we make also logically arrive at the conclusion that because no evidence of a deity has been found, there is no such evidence.

Again, in the year 600 BCE humanity had no evidence for the planet Pluto, for quasars, for ice on Europa. By your logic, because we had no evidence for them in 600 BCE those things did not exist at that time.

What i meant by the the statement you quoted is that, like in 600 BCE when they could see the stars but didn't know what they were, we see evidence for God but cannot see it for what it is.

Scuba Pete · #85 07-21-2006, 02:01 PM

The evidence was there. We were just oblivious to it.

The evidence for God is there right now. Many of us are just oblivious to it.

Willamena · #86 07-21-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

If the material with which we have been presented has not been shown through our understandings to evince the existence of a deity, then no evidence for a deity has been found. Just as we may logically arrive at the conclusion that because no deity has been found, there is no such deity; we make also logically arrive at the conclusion that because no evidence of a deity has been found, there is no such evidence.

Conclusively, given that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods, the intrinsic, passive position of atheism is the only logical position.

That's not logical. First you claim that evidence found leads to no conclusion about deity; then you claim that no evidence found does lead to conclusion about deity.

Archaeopteryx · #87 07-21-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Again, in the year 600 BCE humanity had no evidence for the planet Pluto, for quasars, for ice on Europa. By your logic, because we had no evidence for them in 600 BCE those things did not exist at that time.

No, this is not the conclusion that was drawn.

Because in 600 BCE there was no evidence for the existence of Pluto, it would have been logically consistent to draw the conclusion then that Pluto did not exist, due explicitly to the lack of evidence for its existence. Because there is evidence now that Pluto exists, it is logically consistent to draw the conclusion that Pluto does exist, and given the revealed properties of the planet and its orbit, it can also be rationally drawn that the planet existed in 600 BCE.

Because of the current lack of evidence abound for the existence of a god, the presently most logical conclusion to draw would be that no god exists, and therefore the presently most logical position regarding the existence of a god is within the absence of belief.

Archaeopteryx · #88 07-21-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willamena

That's not logical. First you claim that evidence found leads to no conclusion about deity; then you claim that no evidence found does lead to conclusion about deity.

Please explain how I first claimed that 'evidence found leads to no conclusion about deity.' On the contrary, evidence found regarding the existence of a deity would most certainly lead to a conclusion about the deity, if only that the deity may, in fact, exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetDoc

The evidence for God is there right now. Many of us are just oblivious to it.

Please present this evidence, and explain why this evidence has not been posted globally - "Evidence found for the existence of God" - Pretty big news, no?

Scuba Pete · #89 07-21-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

Please present this evidence, and explain why this evidence has not been posted globally - "Evidence found for the existence of God" - Pretty big news, no?

It's under your nose. It's above you and around you, in fact: it's everywhere you look. You simply have drawn the wrong conclusions my friend, but the evidence is ample as well as obvious.

Willamena · #90 07-21-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

Please explain how I first claimed that 'evidence found leads to no conclusion about deity.' On the contrary, evidence found regarding the existence of a deity would most certainly lead to a conclusion about the deity, if only that the deity may, in fact, exist.

Not evidence for the existence of deity, but the evidence of the world around us: science, "the material with which we have been presented".

"If the material with which we have been presented has not been shown through our understandings to evince the existence of a deity, then no evidence for a deity has been found."

You are effectively saying that in all the evidence we have accessed, no evidence for deity has been found, which logically *should* be saying that no conclusion can be drawn a