• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spiritual?

Somkid

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure "fundamentalist" and "atheist" belong in the same sentence as most atheists have the good sense to go along with empirical proof or scientific discovery. Thus if you are a "fundamentalist" in anything I'm under the impression that you idea can not be changed no matter how much evidence is slapping you in the face. Is that a fair assessment?
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
I'm not sure "fundamentalist" and "atheist" belong in the same sentence as most atheists have the good sense to go along with empirical proof or scientific discovery. Thus if you are a "fundamentalist" in anything I'm under the impression that you idea can not be changed no matter how much evidence is slapping you in the face. Is that a fair assessment?

What evidence do you have that is doing the slapping?
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure "fundamentalist" and "atheist" belong in the same sentence as most atheists have the good sense to go along with empirical proof or scientific discovery. Thus if you are a "fundamentalist" in anything I'm under the impression that you idea can not be changed no matter how much evidence is slapping you in the face. Is that a fair assessment?
No offense, Somkid, but you really need to get out a little more. Something like, "I happen to believe conciousness is simply an electro-chemical reaction" is a view many atheists dogmatically insist on, but it's hardly logical or supported by evidence--and that's just one example.
 

eudaimonia

Fellowship of Reason
No offense, Somkid, but you really need to get out a little more. Something like, "I happen to believe conciousness is simply an electro-chemical reaction" is a view many atheists dogmatically insist on, but it's hardly logical or supported by evidence--and that's just one example.

How is this not supported by evidence? :confused:

It might not be "absolutely, incontrovertably proven" by current evidence, but where is the "evidence slapping one in the face" that this is a false view? I don't see atheists refusing to accept improved theories of mind, as they become supported by scientific evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 

frg001

Complex bunch of atoms
I'm not sure "fundamentalist" and "atheist" belong in the same sentence as most atheists have the good sense to go along with empirical proof or scientific discovery. Thus if you are a "fundamentalist" in anything I'm under the impression that you idea can not be changed no matter how much evidence is slapping you in the face. Is that a fair assessment?

I understand what you say, but I am only a fundamentalist over the idea of a creator of the universe. It would be very very difficult to prove to me otherwise.
For instance if someone appeared before me and said 'I am god, see as I make the oceans disappear' - and did, and said 'Watch as I transport you into space", and did, and perhaps spontaneously created a planet, or a star... I still would not believe in an ultimate creator, but simply that there were beings that existed who could do these things (who you could then perhaps call 'godlike to humanity'). In fact I don't think it is possible to 'prove God', not just because it is IMO an absurd concept, but because we as human beings could not understand any concrete evidence given, anyway.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
How is this not supported by evidence? :confused:

It might not be "absolutely, incontrovertibly proven" by current evidence, but where is the "evidence slapping one in the face" that this is a false view? I don't see atheists refusing to accept improved theories of mind, as they become supported by scientific evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark
You are establishing a double-standard. Where is the "evidence slapping one in the face" that shows God is not the ground of all being?

Religious "fundamentalists" are routinely criticized for believing in something for which there is no empirical evidence regardless of their subjective experience. Yet, there is is no empirical evidence of any kind to support the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Heck, there's no general agreement on what consciousness is, or even if it is. Are you saying religionists can be "fundamentalists" because they believe in God and atheists can't because they believe in matter?
 

tomspug

Absorbant
Atheists have a bad habit of accepting whatever goes along with their beliefs, evidence or not. How is that different from religious fundamentalism? People treat science with an almost greater faith than most religions do.

There is hardly as much 'proof' of anything as people think there is. The unknowns continue to dramatically outnumber the knowns. Interesting how Darwin was over a hundred years ago, yet there is the same percentage (if not more) of people in the world who believe in a higher power.
 

frg001

Complex bunch of atoms
...yet there is the same percentage (if not more) of people in the world who believe in a higher power.

That is not strange. Until science explains everything, the same number of people will have the same fears of the unknown, and psychological need for an answer to believe in, no matter how far-fetched.

In fact I think I have just answered one of my own questions... thanks :)
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
That is not strange. Until science explains everything, the same number of people will have the same fears of the unknown, and psychological need for an answer to believe in, no matter how far-fetched.

In fact I think I have just answered one of my own questions... thanks :)
hehehe. Science describes; religion explains. Ask it a few 'whys' and "explanations come to an end because all the prior answers are not whys after all, but descriptions of events.
 
Top