dont you guys think its a little close-minded to say there is absolutely positively beyond a doubt no god/sprititual entity in any sense? i am not religious but it seems to me that atheism could be compared to religion, in that atheists dogmaticly deny the existence of god/spirit/whatever.

just a thought..

Views: 61

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Win!
touche.. but prove the easter bunny doesnt exist! hah
That IS exactly what I think as well...as soon as I see manna falling from the sky or other obvious "miracles" that only a Christian god could perform, I'll be preaching his glory all over the world... I'll hop on that bandwagon and ride it all the way to heaven! But until that happens, I'll just have to try and reconcile my fate with the massive evidence of Science..
You prove the first negative and we will then follow suit and prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

Or since negatives can't be proven, do we need now assume that everything exists and treat it as equals with the things we have evidence for? Seems foolish to me.
Nice doone,I like it lmao
Who said "absolutely positively beyond a doubt" besides you?

I (and many other atheists) see no evidence of a supernatural being. I suppose there is that possibility, but I see no evidence of such, and it seems pretty damned unlikely.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "atheism" defines; as-well-as how most atheists self-identify and self-define.

Do you deny the existence of fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa; or for that matter do you deny the existence of Zeus, Odin, or Ra? Yahweh and other gods fall in this same category for us.
Pretty much everything that's already been said here. Atheism isn't the affirmative belief that gods don't exist, rather the lack of belief that they do. Without proper evidence, we can't say that there is, but we don't say it's impossible (depending on how specific your definition of God is; lots of aspects of the Christian God are impossible). This is why I say agnosticism doesn't really exist; if you don't believe God's exist, then you're an atheist. Atheists don't know either way, just like agnostics, so why is there this separate term? But I digress; the point being, there's nothing dogmatic about a lack of belief when the claim that's being disbelieved has no evidence to back it up.


Now you are thinking in 2D.
I can't prove leprechauns don't exist, but I'd be an idiot to live my life as though they did.
I find trying to discuss the nature of atheism with atheists a little like trying to seize a watermelon seed - very slippery. On the one hand, many will put the burden of proof of the existence of God on the believer, saying that their skepticism is based on the lack of rational evidence. On the other hand, provision of rational evidence, such as medical documentation of a miraculous healing, is dismissed out of hand as invalid because "there must be a scientific explanation; we just don't know what it is yet." Arguments tend to veer between God as a Prime Mover, as it were, and God as described in the Bible, as in this which I quote verbatim: "Regardless of any supposed holes in the fossil record, it's impossible that a loving God would allow the injustice and suffering that there is in the world . . ."

I believe that respectful discussion of the issues is a good thing. A number of atheist bloggers are quite mean-spirited, perhaps imitating the exaggerated pronouncements of some outspoken and obnoxious Christians while ignoring the majority who are less attention-getting. Even the existence of "atheist street teams" which I see on this site argues for a less than completely rational approach. Since when are "atheist evangelists" who are trying to persuade someone about the rightness of their belief system and argue Christians out of their beliefs any different than religions trying to seek adherents?

But one of the most significant problems with your assumption, Jeff, is that scientific, testable proof is the only way of determining whether anything is real. When people fall in love, is that real? The feeling of awe you get at the lip of the Grand Canyon -- is that real? When you have an "aha!" moment - did something real happen? When someone receives a word of encouragement that starts them on the path to reconsidering their decision to commit suicide -- what has really happened there? I am not saying that God only makes himself known in the subjective experience, but a petulant demand that God demonstrate his reality to me according to the criteria that I set down in a way that I determine will convince me -- let's just say that it might not be the tool for the job if genuine inquiry is the goal. C.S. Lewis said that our efforts to understand God might be a little like his dog's effort to understand what he is doing as he sits reading in front of his evening fire. We might not be able to understand everything we observe.
That's one possibility.

Nevertheless, I used it as an example of something that's real. Science can show that there's a dopamine rush, perhaps. But If someone asked you to prove that the sight of the Grand Canyon moved or inspired you, how could you do that?
My mother had a meningioma tumor in her brain, right behind her left eye. For weeks before she finally had an MRI, she heard music at random moments. At first, she thought they had played it during a TV show but later saw a rerun and realized there was no music in that scene at all.

The frequency with which she heard the music increased and her fingers and arms began to feel tingly when that happened (I think on the right side of her body). She had acupuncture and almost skipped her MRI because it had gotten rid of the symptoms (which there were more of, besides the one I mentioned).

We could have interpreted her experiences as "spiritual", but would that have been safe? And if you think that it was obviously abnormal and probably something to be checked out, why? You intuitively know that what she was experiencing needs to be checked out and can be explained. By what? Science. Science knew there was something wrong and diagnosed her quickly. She was in surgery within 24 hours.

What would her fate have been if we had believed that she was having a spiritual experience? She'd be dead... just like many children have died at the hands of their well-intentioned parents who thought they could pray them out of an easily treatable cold that turned into pneumonia.

Do you depend solely on God when you are diagnosed with cancer? No. You go to the scientists... and condemn them later when you're in the clear and give all the credit to God who did nothing but give you warm fuzzies while you were scared.

Sorry, until someone is ready to put ALL their faith in God, and none of it in science, I am unconvinced that anyone really believes he will come through. I think death-rates would skyrocket, and no one could brush the numbers aside by claiming "it was their time". God doesn't save people who don't use science. He lets them die even if they have the "faith of a mustard seed". Science doesn't care if you believe in it; it just works. It also admits when it fails and regroups.

RSS

  

Forum

Your kid's friends

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by GTWilco 3 hours ago. 2 Replies

World conflict and problems other than Israel-Palestine.

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 9 hours ago. 54 Replies

Is Anything Worth Saying Anymore?

Started by Ari E. S. in Small Talk. Last reply by Fragile Nokia 18 hours ago. 5 Replies

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service