Converting

[Pah]

My intention is not debate, but just to understand, but apparently I am wholly unable to follow the reasoning which leads to this kind of discussion.

I find that you understood enough to call my post "classic"

I find that "Now back to the other question. Since there are things that defy explanation, doesn't it require just as much faith to believe that they have an unknown naturalistic explaination as to believe that they have a supernatural explanation? I think the answer is obvious," is not seeking education but is debate

I find " If there is not such evidence, are you no better than those believe in the Bible? " is argumentative as is " You are blinded by your own disbelief" and "Do you believe that there are things that defy explanation, proof, test, etc. for a long time?

Then after you answer, you can ask yourself my other questions about faith. (It hurts, doesn't it?)"

I find you know enough to say " Is there something missing in atheism? (What am I saying? Everything is missing from atheism.)" - something more argumentative.

I find you are sarcastic in saying "It also begs the question, "Why would an atheist want to convert to a religion at all?" After all atheism has so much going for it. What is the orthodox atheist world view anyway, or do you guys just show up for the coffee, hymns, good preaching, and beautiful architecture (atheists are known for having the most beautiful cathedrals, aren't they?)"

I also find your last post dissembling.

I ask the moderators to close this thread as it is at cross purposes to the forum. Previous warning was given and the debating continues.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In its strictest sense, you have no proof for many of the things that you believe. I would dare to say most of the things that you believe cannot be "proven" in the strictest sense of the word. So don't be so smug.

I have proof for everything I believe, though whether or not it is good proof is open to debate any time. I apologize if there appeared to be smugness in my last post, it was not intentional.

Now back to the other question. Since there are things that defy explanation,

Stop right there, I never agreed that this was true. There are things that defy explaination right now, yes, but there is no such thing as something eternally unexplainable....even if a phenomenon is totally irrational, that is an explaination in and of itself.

doesn't it require just as much faith to believe that they have an unknown naturalistic explaination as to believe that they have a supernatural explanation?

It does not require any faith to believe that which makes the most sense to you and has a lot of evidence behind it. It does require faith for one to believe that which does not make sense to them or does not have much (or any) evidence behind it. That the things we observe have natural explainations makes sense to me and has lots of evidence behind it.

I think the answer is obvious, I understand that you have a problem with the word faith, so insert trust or whatever word that doesn't offend you, but the concept is the same. You decide who to trust just like I do. You have just decided to trust someone else, other than that, you are exactly like me and adherents to any other religion.

I think this is what you mean, but please correct me if I am wrong: you seem to be saying that because we can never be 100% sure of anything, all claims are equal, since any given claim is either 100% certain or 0% certain. Since science can never be 100% certain about anything, all scientific claims are 0% certain just like fairy tales are 0% certain.

I disagree with this. You have overlooked the fact that we can be 99.99% sure that a claim is true, 42% certain that a claim is true, or 0.001% certain. To believe that leprechauns exist even though there is a very small certainty that they do exist (there is no evidence that leprechauns exist) requires a lot of faith....on the other hand, believing that leprechauns do not exist does not require faith, because there is a high degree of certainty that leprechauns do not exist. Just because neither belief is 100% certain does not mean both beliefs have an equal probability of being true (one is more probable than the other--in fact, much more probable).

Perhaps, dharveymi, if you would like to share your theistic views and why you disagree with my opinions on this matter, you should start a new thread in the discussion/debate forum.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Good post Mr. Spinkles, I agree.

 

[dharveymi]

Mr. Sprinkles,

For the most part I agree with you. I too require a high degree of probability before I will believe in something, but the evidence that I use to determine my beliefs are probably different than yours. I place a lot of weight on evidence from the Bible, for example. From what I have read, you probably place a lot more weight on the writings of scientists, reporters, etc. I have reasons for placing so much weight on the authors of the Bible, you similarly have reasons for placing so much weight of others.

Consider a hypothetical truth (Truth 1), we might have each calculated a similar probability that Truth 1 is true, say 87%. Because we have each calulated the same probability that Truth 1 is true, does that mean that we agree. Of course not; you have based your decisions on entirely different evidence then me. Because we do not agree, does that necessarily make you better than me. Of course not, it doesn't address the relative merits of either form of evidence.

All I am saying is that just because it doesn't make sense to you, or you don't believe there is a lot of evidence behind a belief, does not make you correct or in agreement with other. It might make total sense to someone else and they might find a lot of evidence for it.

 

[dharveymi]

pah,

I admit I was having a little fun, but my questions are sincere. I would like to know about why an anthiest would consider changing to another religion, even if it is just a hypothetical question.

 

[Pah]

pah,

I admit I was having a little fun, but my questions are sincere. I would like to know about why an anthiest would consider changing to another religion, even if it is just a hypothetical question.

Well then, in seriousness, I personally would never change absent personal, supernatural proof.

 

[dharveymi]

You do understand that these terms are contradictory. By definition, supernatural implies that a thing cannot be proved.

 

[Pah]

You do understand that these terms are contradictory. By definition, supernatural implies that a thing cannot be proved.

There you have it!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You do understand that these terms are contradictory. By definition, supernatural implies that a thing cannot be proved.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Ceridwen018]

dharveymi, you do understand that the only proof for god is considered 'supernatural'.