| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
presdoug 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8111
|
 Posted: April 06 2012 at 13:01 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
presdoug wrote:
lazland wrote:
presdoug wrote:
I believe that people who believe in the existence of an all loving God and an eternal life after death are involved in "Wish Fullfilment" They want to believe it to be true so much, and it makes them feel SO good inside, that they cannot even consider thinking otherwise.
And a lot of it is also based in a denial of what death really is-death is so frightening and negative, that they want their afterlife beliefs to smother that negativity.
In the end, what matters is the truth, not what makes you feel fantastic. i know how negative death is, too, but i accept it for what it really is.
Religion can be like a drug!
|
Sums it all up really. I include myself as one of those people who really want to believe because I find the alternative (nothing, forever) really rather frightening. |
Thanks for your response. And i hope i don't come across as insensitive to, or lacking in empathy with, people who turn to religion out of fear. Man, i fear death too.
It is a hard thing to accept, isn't it, people. It is a crazy thing!
|
I don't think you're being insensitive, but you're vastly oversimplifying the situation.
|
I sort of see what you mean. It is not that cut and dried a situation, is it? I mean, not everybody fears death, or considers it something unappealing. And there are other motives behind embracing religion than fear of death.
|
 |
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 13:08 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
RoyFairbank wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Agnosticim makes no sense because it's *definitely* wrong. There's either a god/afterlife or there isn't. A believer could be right. An atheist could be right. An agnostic must be wrong. Now this doesn't matter much perhaps because one could be agnostic and lead a nice worthwhile life but I think when presented with a question, it's just good standard practise to select one of the options that doesn't have a 0% probability of being correct. Most agnostics live as atheists so perhaps in that sense they have chosen. |
Textbook you are correct.
Agnosticism is religion purged of faith, leaving the same religious doubt of the material world.
Atheism is an understanding of religion that negates it, by showing the process of the material world created it and the concept of God, in the course of human history.
|
How does agnosticism leave a religious doubt of the material world?
|
Agnosticism is an empirical ideology. It is based on what you can see and what you have been taught about what you see. It still works in idealist categories, thus, there is the reality of sensations, concepts which are the content of those sensations, and no concrete, material whole. Reality is only real in so far as I can touch and feel it, they confirm and contribute to concepts I have about my sensual, subjective reality. Concepts like those of religion then are not material products but independent things (like my other concepts) which may or may not be as "true", we just can't empirically confirm them, even if we give them a 1/1,000,000 odds. This is saying there is not a concrete universal process of which our concepts are a part. Religion is a concept which evolved in the brains of an animal on the planet Earth over time, under certain environmental conditions. This process is the reality of religious concepts, they are not independent from it at all. They cannot not supersede reality because they were created by it, they don't just exist as a floating concept in the realm beyond human sensation that may or may not be true. Religion is the anthropomorphization of nature by animals becoming conscious in their environment and attributing to nature their own subjective values. Hence, a human mind like theirs must be driving nature, and death must not end in eternal nonexistence. How else could an animal understand reality except on its own terms? This is the process of nature, which renders religion completely explained, completely negated by its real origins. Its claims subsequently dissolved, false, 100% impossible. This acknowledges the material world is the ultimate reality. Agnosticism is blind to it and working in a minefield of floating concepts, and doubt of reality, ignorance of historical process.
Edited by RoyFairbank - April 06 2012 at 13:12
|
|
OT Räihälä
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 13:21 |
The T wrote:
As I'm pretty sure that, unlike most cases with religion, atheism and similar secular school of thoughts are not imposed or taught by parents, it's more than likely that in most cases you will have reached ythe decision not to believe (or at least the decision to DOUBT) by your own free will (this doesn't mean ALL religious people haven't made their choice out of free will) How did that happen? When, how old where you? Are you happy about your choice or at times you long for the days when you had something to believe?
|
I don't have any religious senses at all, and that's a physical quality, not mental. I can not imagine how it feels to have a religious experience. To me any kind of religious manifestation is theatrical. I didn't choose that view. One day I just noticed I am like that. It's like realizing that you are homosexual/blue-eyed/under 180cm/UFO/an Evertonian, or whatever quality that you couldn't choose.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 13:28 |
RoyFairbank wrote:
Agnosticism is an empirical ideology. It is based on what you can see and what you have been taught about what you see. It still works in idealist categories, thus, there is the reality of sensations, concepts which are the content of those sensations, and no concrete, material whole. Reality is only real in so far as I can touch and feel it, they confirm and contribute to concepts I have about my sensual, subjective reality. Concepts like those of religion then are not material products but independent things (like my other concepts) which may or may not be as "true", we just can't empirically confirm them, even if we give them a 1/1,000,000 odds.
This is saying there is not a concrete universal process of which our concepts are a part. Religion is a concept which evolved in the brains of an animal on the planet Earth over time, under certain environmental conditions. This process is the reality of religious concepts, they are not independent from it at all. They cannot not supersede reality because they were created by it, they don't just exist as a floating concept in the realm beyond human sensation that may or may not be true. Religion is the anthropomorphization of nature by animals becoming conscious in their environment and attributing to nature their own subjective values. Hence, a human mind like theirs must be driving nature, and death must not end in eternal nonexistence. How else could an animal understand reality except on its own terms? This is the process of nature, which renders religion completely explained, completely negated by its real origins. Its claims subsequently dissolved, false, 100% impossible. This acknowledges the material world is the ultimate reality. Agnosticism is blind to it and working in a minefield of floating concepts, and doubt of reality, ignorance of historical process.
|
I was going to bold all your unfounded assumptions, but it's most of what you wrote in the first paragraph. Agnosticism is not an empirical ideology necessarily. It's by no means requires you accept positivism. I'm not really even sure what you're saying in the last sentence of the first paragraph. There's no reason to attach empiricism to agnosticism. Would the agnostic say "We can't say if the square root of two is irrational or rational." ? That's absurd. Agnosticism says in no way that ideas remove themselves from the physical universe. It in no way says that religion did not come to prominence as a result of environmental condition put on the human brain. With the third bold, you're making a false claim about agnosticism again. You also ignore the fact that there are things which are not scientifically verifiable. Those are subject to change, but it's a fundamental fact. You completely oversimplify religions. There's other mysticism than a Judeo-christrian humanoid god. You seem to think you offer a proof against religion. You simply postulate a theory for the origin of religions. That says nothing of the truth value of a statement. It's as if I said, "Saturn has a surface temperature of -86 C" and you tried to disprove that statement by pointing out that I uttered it due to a genetic mutation which causes random sounds to project from my mouth. I would say hard atheism is blind to current limitations of human knowledge and certainty.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:08 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
RoyFairbank wrote:
Agnosticism is an empirical ideology. It is based on what you can see and what you have been taught about what you see. It still works in idealist categories, thus, there is the reality of sensations, concepts which are the content of those sensations, and no concrete, material whole. Reality is only real in so far as I can touch and feel it, they confirm and contribute to concepts I have about my sensual, subjective reality. Concepts like those of religion then are not material products but independent things (like my other concepts) which may or may not be as "true", we just can't empirically confirm them, even if we give them a 1/1,000,000 odds.
This is saying there is not a concrete universal process of which our concepts are a part. Religion is a concept which evolved in the brains of an animal on the planet Earth over time, under certain environmental conditions. This process is the reality of religious concepts, they are not independent from it at all. They cannot not supersede reality because they were created by it, they don't just exist as a floating concept in the realm beyond human sensation that may or may not be true. Religion is the anthropomorphization of nature by animals becoming conscious in their environment and attributing to nature their own subjective values. Hence, a human mind like theirs must be driving nature, and death must not end in eternal nonexistence. How else could an animal understand reality except on its own terms? This is the process of nature, which renders religion completely explained, completely negated by its real origins. Its claims subsequently dissolved, false, 100% impossible. This acknowledges the material world is the ultimate reality. Agnosticism is blind to it and working in a minefield of floating concepts, and doubt of reality, ignorance of historical process.
|
I was going to bold all your unfounded assumptions, but it's most of what you wrote in the first paragraph. Agnosticism is not an empirical ideology necessarily. It's by no means requires you accept positivism.
I'm not really even sure what you're saying in the last sentence of the first paragraph. There's no reason to attach empiricism to agnosticism. Would the agnostic say "We can't say if the square root of two is irrational or rational." ? That's absurd.
Agnosticism says in no way that ideas remove themselves from the physical universe.
It in no way says that religion did not come to prominence as a result of environmental condition put on the human brain.
With the third bold, you're making a false claim about agnosticism again. You also ignore the fact that there are things which are not scientifically verifiable. Those are subject to change, but it's a fundamental fact.
You completely oversimplify religions. There's other mysticism than a Judeo-christrian humanoid god.
You seem to think you offer a proof against religion. You simply postulate a theory for the origin of religions. That says nothing of the truth value of a statement. It's as if I said, "Saturn has a surface temperature of -86 C" and you tried to disprove that statement by pointing out that I uttered it due to a genetic mutation which causes random sounds to project from my mouth.
I would say hard atheism is blind to current limitations of human knowledge and certainty.
|
You just agreed with everything I said! "limitations of human knowledge and certainty" + "[can't] simply postulate a theory for the origin of religions" = "ideas remove themselves from the physical universe." i.e. limitations of human knowledge, etc. = limitations of reality + [Concepts independent from their material origins] = concepts independent from their origins beyond the limitations of reality The origin of something is everything. Religion as a natural product, is denied its attributed supernatural content Atheists agree in the subjective limitations of human knowledge, but there are no objective limitations Empiricists inevitably allow for objective limitations, inviting in idealism.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:10 |
|
Are we reading the same thing? I disagreed with just about everything you said.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
presdoug
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8111
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:20 |
presdoug wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
presdoug wrote:
lazland wrote:
presdoug wrote:
I believe that people who believe in the existence of an all loving God and an eternal life after death are involved in "Wish Fullfilment" They want to believe it to be true so much, and it makes them feel SO good inside, that they cannot even consider thinking otherwise.
And a lot of it is also based in a denial of what death really is-death is so frightening and negative, that they want their afterlife beliefs to smother that negativity.
In the end, what matters is the truth, not what makes you feel fantastic. i know how negative death is, too, but i accept it for what it really is.
Religion can be like a drug!
|
Sums it all up really. I include myself as one of those people who really want to believe because I find the alternative (nothing, forever) really rather frightening. |
Thanks for your response. And i hope i don't come across as insensitive to, or lacking in empathy with, people who turn to religion out of fear. Man, i fear death too.
It is a hard thing to accept, isn't it, people. It is a crazy thing!
|
I don't think you're being insensitive, but you're vastly oversimplifying the situation.
|
I sort of see what you mean. It is not that cut and dried a situation, is it? I mean, not everybody fears death, or considers it something unappealing. And there are other motives behind embracing religion than fear of death.
|
Equality, does it sound like i am starting to understand what you were getting at about oversimplifying with the above post?
|
|
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:27 |
|
Condensed Reply, eliminating double questions. This is a more straightforward version.
You completely oversimplify religions. <<<<<<<<<< In essence they are the same, though they have circumstantial differences.
You
seem to think you offer a proof against religion. <<<<<<<<< I do, the only proof. Otherwise you have to accept agnosticism
I would say hard atheism is blind to current limitations of human knowledge and certainty.
<<<<Saying there are limitations to human knowledge is a stand-in for saying their are limitations in objective reality, that the natural process does not make up the entirety of existence.
Agnosticism says in no way that ideas remove themselves from the physical universe. >>>> if an idea cannot be explained by its material origins, then it is removed from the material world, and is floating in idealistic abstraction.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:30 |
presdoug wrote:
Equality, does it sound like i am starting to understand what you were getting at about oversimplifying with the above post?
|
Yes. I think you're tuning into my wavelength accurately.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:34 |
RoyFairbank wrote:
Condensed Reply, eliminating double questions. This is a more straightforward version.
You completely oversimplify religions. <<<<<<<<<< In essence they are the same, though they have circumstantial differences.
You
seem to think you offer a proof against religion. <<<<<<<<< I do, the only proof. Otherwise you have to accept agnosticism
I would say hard atheism is blind to current limitations of human knowledge and certainty.
<<<<Saying there are limitations to human knowledge is a stand-in for saying their are limitations in objective reality, that the natural process does not make up the entirety of existence.
Agnosticism says in no way that ideas remove themselves from the physical universe. >>>> if an idea cannot be explained by its material origins, then it is removed from the material world, and is floating in idealistic abstraction.
|
There's more than a circumstantial difference between Taosim and Judaism. But it's not a proof at all. It's just an observation you made. No, they are not equivalent. You can't know the momentum and position of a particle. That's a limitation on objective reality, but it's not a claim of an extra-natural process. Even if I were to accept that (I'm not convinced that it's the necessary conclusion), that's irrelevant. You can explain the origin of an idea without saying anything about the bodies which the idea represents. I can be thinking of a tiger. You can say anything you want about the origin of that thought, but you haven't necessarily said anything at all about tigers.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 15:40 |
Textbook wrote:
Agnosticim makes no sense because it's *definitely* wrong. There's either a god/afterlife or there isn't. A believer could be right. An atheist could be right. An agnostic must be wrong. Now this doesn't matter much perhaps because one could be agnostic and lead a nice worthwhile life but I think when presented with a question, it's just good standard practise to select one of the options that doesn't have a 0% probability of being correct. Most agnostics live as atheists so perhaps in that sense they have chosen. |
The joke was of course not only was I religiously agnostic, but how that means I'm also like, dogmatically agnostic  Though naturally I'd disagree, because IMO you can't know either way. You say there's a right or wrong? I disagree, you can't know there's god or not. It's based on faith (Atheists think I always troll with this but it's true). I can't know there's a god or afterlife, so that' that. And yeah, I guess I do live my life as atheist since I don't worship, and I live by own morals of right/wrong and not the churches but I don't actively say there's no god. I was gunna leave the joke be but damn, you had to respond with such a closed minded result.  I should know better than to go in here anyway. Atheists piss me off as much as fundie Christians  (In terms of belief, in real life Atheists are of course more fun to hang with)
Edited by JJLehto - April 06 2012 at 15:40
|
|
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 15:48 |
|
^To equality
You are differentiating concept from objective conditions. Religion doesn't exist as a concept detached from history.
You don't try to trace the origin in some time period of a thought in a human head. It is the material conditions of history which determine everything humans think, although what they think is in the subjective forms which try to eliminate contradictions and make reality consistent - i.e. concepts like Tree, Democracy, Good, Evil. In reality, these do not exist, they are super-historical, non-changing, consistent where reality is contradictory and in constant flux. They are abstract, categorical: this is a human creation. A Tiger is not a good analogy to religion. You can understand Tigers by understanding the forces of which it is an expression, environment, evolution... etc. etc. Religion is a social concept, a human subjective attempt to make reality consistent with human values in the concrete circumstances humanity found itself.
Edited by RoyFairbank - April 06 2012 at 15:50
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 16:54 |
|
Writing a paper on Methodism. Please kill me.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 17:14 |
stonebeard wrote:
Writing a paper on Methodism. Please kill me. |
Hey, I was raised Methodist, can't help you at all.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
presdoug
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8111
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 21:06 |
Ironically, religion would not even exist without empiricism. It is silly to sit on one's high horse and finger point at something to which you rely on, and say "I am beyond this", when in fact, you are not. But then, it is all too human to "make designs" and connections wherever you can. (I may be doing this right now! ) We, as a species, have a need to "connect". But not to oversimplify-different people have different reasons for needing to, and some are more inclined than others to be individualists versus a group mentality.
Edited by presdoug - April 06 2012 at 21:30
|
|
Flyingsod
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 19 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 564
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 22:21 |
|
Hi all. Just gonna throw my two cents in here. In reply to the OP, no one ever told me I had to believe in something so I never have. Eventually I had questions and no religious types could ever prove their creator actually exists so I decided it was all hokum.
The real reason I'm posting though is because I thought this the other day after a friend had been talking about spiritualism.
If there is a spiritual world It has chosen to hide itself from us. I think we should respect it's wishes and ignore it.
|
|
This space intentionally left blank
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 22:28 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Writing a paper on Methodism. Please kill me. |
Hey, I was raised Methodist, can't help you at all.
|
So was I. I was confirmed in the faith a decade ago. Stunning success, that was.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 06 2012 at 22:37 |
Textbook wrote:
Agnosticim makes no sense because it's *definitely* wrong. There's either a god/afterlife or there isn't. A believer could be right. An atheist could be right. An agnostic must be wrong. Now this doesn't matter much perhaps because one could be agnostic and lead a nice worthwhile life but I think when presented with a question, it's just good standard practise to select one of the options that doesn't have a 0% probability of being correct. Most agnostics live as atheists so perhaps in that sense they have chosen. |
An agnostic looks at the universe and concludes there is insufficient evidence to believe in a creator, the "supernatural" or whatever. Yet he thinks it is an over-assertion to say, positively, "there is no God" as atheists do. I would wager very few agnostics are actually living a constant struggle of indecision, but act as if there is no deity. When pressed, I would suppose most atheists would say they don't actually know there isn't a god, but choose to positively assert it for whatever reason. In their actions and attitudes in the real-world, I would say atheists and self-proclaimed agnostics hardly differ at all.
One of the most irritating, pedantic discussions I see a lot is the sh*tstorm about "Well, atheism isn't a belief at all, it's a lack of belief." While I think that's bull anyway, the discussion is about worldviews and the paradigm of how one sees life. When one tosses away the lens of faith and dons the lens of atheism, it's a change in worldview, but the function is very similar, coloring the world in similar ways for a person.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 07 2012 at 06:04 |
stonebeard wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Agnosticim makes no sense because it's *definitely* wrong.
There's either a god/afterlife or there isn't.
A believer could be right. An atheist could be right.
An agnostic must be wrong.
Now this doesn't matter much perhaps because one could be agnostic and lead a nice worthwhile life but I think when presented with a question, it's just good standard practise to select one of the options that doesn't have a 0% probability of being correct. Most agnostics live as atheists so perhaps in that sense they have chosen. |
An agnostic looks at the universe and concludes there is insufficient evidence to believe in a creator, the "supernatural" or whatever. Yet he thinks it is an over-assertion to say, positively, "there is no God" as atheists do. I would wager very few agnostics are actually living a constant struggle of indecision, but act as if there is no deity. When pressed, I would suppose most atheists would say they don't actually know there isn't a god, but choose to positively assert it for whatever reason. In their actions and attitudes in the real-world, I would say atheists and self-proclaimed agnostics hardly differ at all.
One of the most irritating, pedantic discussions I see a lot is the sh*tstorm about "Well, atheism isn't a belief at all, it's a lack of belief." While I think that's bull anyway, the discussion is about worldviews and the paradigm of how one sees life. When one tosses away the lens of faith and dons the lens of atheism, it's a change in worldview, but the function is very similar, coloring the world in similar ways for a person. |
As has been pointed out on several occasions, atheists are really agnostics because they cannot conclusively prove that gods do not exist (strong agnostic, agnostic atheism etc.). However, that interpretation stems from the direction of meaning flowing from theist to atheist; from gods existing to gods not existing – we generally accept that when we use the word agnostic we're referring to those that are hedging their bets and are open to the possibility of gods existing if proof could be found (foxhole theists). If we lived on a wholly nontheistic world (i.e. one where the notion of gods never occurred) then agnostics would be those that questioned the non-existence of gods; thus the direction of meaning would flow from atheist to theist: atheists would be called humanist, and theists would be called ahumanists and therefore theists would be more accurately called strong agnostic (agnostic theism) because they could not conclusively prove that gods do exist and the burden of proof would rest solely with them. The predominant worldview of that world’s population would not be based upon religious teachings or philosophies; it would be nontheistic and irreligious and they could use words like faith and belief in a purely non-religious context without the excess baggage those words carry. On our world, the words that we use are ultimately biased towards theism because we live on a world where the notion of gods ever existing did occur, hence the word atheist would still be used to describe someone from another world where the notion of gods never occurred, rather than humanist or some other non-theistic word.
Atheists do not change or colour their worldview based upon the non-existence of gods, it is more that their worldview determines their ability to question the existence of said gods. If you change from being a theist to an atheist your worldview will have changed, however, I suspect it was a change in worldview that resulted in the subsequent change from theism to atheism. An atheist does not argue from a position that gods do not exist but for the position that gods do not exist, whereas a theist does argue from a position that at least one god does exist (and from a position that other gods do not exist) - in general theists do not argue for the position of (at least one) god existing. For a (mono)theist the existence of other gods is merely dismissed as false gods (or in some cases multiple manifestations/interpretations of the same god). For me, the for and from position determines whether the worldview colours belief or belief colours worldview, and for me it is possible to say that "I am an atheist because all the evidence suggests that all gods were created by Man" and that statement has no agnostic position.
Words like 'belief' and 'faith' have too many connotations to be banded around lightly; ‘faith’ to theist is a different word than it is to an atheist, just as 'theory' has a different meaning to scientist than it does a layman (or pseudo-scientist, or philosopher, or creationist). Same with belief - "belief in god" has (at least) two meanings to a theist: belief in the existence of god and belief in the deeds/actions/plans of god; to a theist the two are mutually inclusive so can be regarded as one and the same, but from an atheists perspective (of a theist) they are not. To a theist prayer (or a miracle or any other religious attribution) can have a very real and physical outcome so that if the deeds are real then the existence is real, their worldview is the direct result of that belief. An atheist can see the real outcome and postulate possible causes that are not attributed to the actions of a god based upon their worldview, the worldview is unchanged by those observations and postulations - an atheist can observe that the deed had an effect on the theist because of their beliefs, not because of the existence of gods (and an agnostic can accept the possibility of existence of gods without accepting the deeds).
Edited by Dean - April 07 2012 at 07:13
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 07 2012 at 06:52 |
^  683 words to say "I'm an atheist because theists exist, not because gods do not exist" 
Oh well, the lawn needs mowing, that may be more productive.
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread