Double Minded Atheist

[Willamena]

From what you "know" that there's a Eiffel in Paris?

From the witnessing of other humans, no?

I saw pictures on the Internets. So it must be so.

 

[Hawkins]

I saw pictures on the Internets. So it must be so.

So you mean the people don't know anything in Paris before the invention of camera?

Humans don't even need photos to realize that a famous spot exists in Paris because they can trust witnessing from other humans by faith. That's the most efficient way for humans to get to a truth of any kind.

 

[viole]

You don't even have the evidence that earth is revolving around the sun, or the existence of black holes. What's that to do with their existence?

The earth is not revolving around the sun. I never claimed that it does.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Just the that that you even mention other God's should tell you that a real God exist. Where else would it come from.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Willamena]

So you mean the people don't know anything in Paris before the invention of camera?

I've only ever heard of the place, so I don't even know that 'Paris' is so.

(I did see it once on television, on a documentary called "Hogan's Heroes.")

 

[Hawkins]

The earth is not revolving around the sun. I never claimed that it does.

Ciao

- viole

And you don't read daily news. Or you choose not to trust any source unless you are shown the evidence?

How about your education. Are you always refuse to accept anything from your teachers unless evidence are shown?

 

[Hawkins]

I've only ever heard of the place, so I don't even know that 'Paris' is so.

(I did see it once on television, on a documentary called "Hogan's Heroes.")

Do you realize that there were newspapers and books published before the invention of camera and etc. for humans to get to know what could possible in Paris?

Humans trust those sources to gain knowledge. Trust with faith!

 

[viole]

So you mean the people don't know anything in Paris before the invention of camera?

Humans don't even need photos to realize that a famous spot exists in Paris because they can trust witnessing from other humans by faith. That's the most efficient way for humans to get to a truth of any kind.

You mean people with faith in Paris?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

You mean people with faith in Paris?

Ciao

- viole

People have faith that books describing Paris contain truth. Similarly, they believe that Kings of France existed before they met them.

 

[viole]

And you don't read daily news. Or you choose not to trust any source unless you are shown the evidence?

How about your education. Are you always refuse to accept anything from your teachers unless evidence are shown?

Read Newton, or Einstein. The earth does not revolve around the sun. Unless the sun had infinite mass, which is not the case.

What is your education in basic physics?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

To believe or not to believe that is the question.

Is it? I wonder. I don't think that is a particularly frequent or even important question, myself.

There are many atheist that proclaim to Know for certain that God doesn't exist.

True enough, but not all that significant. Atheism as a concept inherits a considerable degree of vagueness from its parent concept, "God".

Most of these individuals ride the coat tails of George Lemaitre and Charles Darwin as if any of these men were died hard atheist.

I very much doubt it. Hardly anyone is an atheists because of Darwin, who as far as we know was never even an atheist. Even evolution itself is at best of marginal signficance for atheism.

As for Lemaitre, he is a relative unknown. I had to google for him to learn who he was.

If you mean to imply that having an "alternate explanation" for the origin of the universe is a significant boom for atheism... I don't think that is quite true, either.

As a rule, theists tend to see the need for such an explanation a whole lot more than atheists do.

The truth of the matter is neither one of these men denounced God.

Indeed. They are nearly irrelevant for atheism and atheists.

George balanced his life with God and science and Darwin instead of saying there is no God, just kept silent and stated " In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."

And yet you assume that they are influential for atheism nevertheless? Why?

 

[Hawkins]

Read Newton, or Einstein. The earth does not revolve around the sun. Unless the sun had infinite mass, which is not the case.

What is your education in basic physics?

Ciao

- viole

So you are denying that people usually consider earth is revolving around the sun, don't you. How about the existence of black holes? Do you have the evidence?

 

[viole]

People have faith that books describing Paris contain truth.

Yes, becaue there are no books that say Paris does not exist. But in the case of your God, there is plenty of people that say He does not exist.

I am sure there are many people of faith that say Jesus does not exist, but Allah does.

Now what?

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Even people in ancient history knew there where Gods.

Not really. Even leaving aside how generously ample the boundaries of the god-concept have to be for that to approach truth, it is still untrue.

So how can people in today's society say or think otherwise. What makes them so sure? It seems to me that no one has a definitive answer.

And that alone is a good reason to at the very least consider atheism.

 

[Hawkins]

Yes, becaue there are no books that say Paris does not exist. But in the case of your God, there is plenty of people that say He does not exist.

I am sure there are many people of faith that say Jesus does not exist, but Allah does.

Now what?

- viole

So you are confused to say that faith always lead to truth. It's not. I simply point out it can lead to truth (and false as well). However it could be the only way to reach a truth in certain circumstance.

It remains a fallacy to say that because some believe allah such that Jesus must not true or vice versa.

 

[g2perk]

Not really. Even leaving aside how generously ample the boundaries of the god-concept have to be for that to approach truth, it is still untrue.


And that alone is a good reason to at the very least consider atheism.

Okay. Now the question becomes where to we come from.

 

[viole]

So you are denying that people usually consider earth is revolving around the sun, don't you. How about the existence of black holes? Do you have the evidence?

Yes, I am denying that the earth revolves around the sun. They both revolve around their center of gravity, if we neglect the presence of the other planets. And since the mass of the sun is so mega duper huge, that center of gravity is close to the center of the sun.

Ciao

- ciole

 

[Hawkins]

Yes, I am denying that the earth revolves around the sun. They both revolve around their center of gravity, if we neglect the presence of the other planets. And since the mass of the sun is so mega duper huge, that center of gravity is close to the center of the sun.

Ciao

- ciole

That's not my question. My question is are you denying that humans today generally consider earth is revolving around the sun or not?

I am talking about a generally accept fact. You choose to deny it by going into a specific school of science. That's why my question. Moreover, if you think that "earth around sun" is not a good example, however about "black holes".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am just trying to figure out on what bases does non believers have to say there is no God. Is it just what they think. At least Christians have the bible.

This nonbeliever doesn't say "there is no god." Instead I say, "I've never seen compelling evidence that leads me to believe in the existence of god(s)."

 

[g2perk]

People today need more convincing. They need to "see it to believe it."

That's the problem. They are wanting and earthly result to a spiritual belief.