Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[fr0d0]

I would. That's how I see it, and how I think Prof Dawkins used it, and why I also use it, thanks to his usage.

If empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven, then their view is self-refuting, no?

The proposition: "We should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven", cannot be scientifically proven, and thus, fails to meet its own criteria.

I can't see it any other way.

[discipulus]

hitler was catholic and and ur sorry ass speach is meaningless !!

Hitler could have very well been Protestant, my point remains.

Also, you are correct in saying that my "speech" is meaningless, for you must see it as such if you are to be consistent.

It is nevertheless a true account of what reality is if atheism is true, regardless of whether it is ultimately meaningful.

[truthBtold]

hitler was catholic and and ur sorry ass speach is meaningless !!

Hitler could have very well been Protestant, my point remains.

Also, you are correct in saying that my "speech" is meaningless, for you must see it as such if you are to be consistent.

It is nevertheless a true account of what reality is if atheism is true, regardless of whether it is ultimately meaningful.

Why do uneducated people say "if atheism is true".. atheism is a label.. Lack of believe in a god/s.. its not true or false.. READ A BOOK..

[fr0d0]

For what is your life if there is no God?

It is exactly what it was before and without the idea of God. We are critters with conscious minds, perhaps made possible by what you call God but which I would completely separate from anything connected to the bible. That is only one set of narratives which has arisen around the intuition of God. Not at all more special than any of the others and all of them are better for not being taken literally. IMHO

Religion has baggage, and it's a huge problem.

All we need is for this new concept to take hold and for no one to go on a power trip on it.

Human nature being what it is, I don't have much hope

[discipulus]

It is exactly what it was before and without the idea of God. We are critters with conscious minds, perhaps made possible by what you call God but which I would completely separate from anything connected to the bible. That is only one set of narratives which has arisen around the intuition of God. Not at all more special than any of the others and all of them are better for not being taken literally. IMHO

You are entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree on certain points, but in the end, my point still remains and it is something you have even agreed with yourself when you alluded that we are critters with conscious minds. We are critters. We think we are special but we really are not. We take up all sorts of noble and flowery sounding ideals about being grateful that the cosmos has "granted" us this remarkable chance to be alive. We delight ourselves with delusions of grandeur, but in the end they are all just that delusions. The "Noble Lie" we believe to make life bearable.

You and I both agree, that if we see life through the lens of atheism, we, like Bertrand Russell, MUST conclude:

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

Bertrant Russell, A Free Man's Worship

---

Why do uneducated people say "if atheism is true".. atheism is a label.. Lack of believe in a god/s.. its not true or false.. READ A BOOK..

Uneducated people may say "if atheism is true..." because they see it as one particular worldview out of the several that exist and are not bothered by the word games some try to play to dance around the important issue at hand which is simply this:

Either God exists or He does not.

So the next time you hear or read an uneducated person utter that phrase, you can take it to mean: "If God does not exist".

But then, since you are educated, I believe you already knew that.

---

Religion has baggage, and it's a huge problem.

I agree!

Human nature being what it is, I don't have much hope

Neither do I my friend, neither do I.

[Angrboda]

We think we are special but we really are not.

Maybe you aren't, but I really am special!

[Rampant.A.I.]

I haven't voted because I don't want to be put on the spot, but I believe gnostic atheism is highly defensible, and I don't think I could demonstrate the Shakti empirically to another, but to me it is more than belief.

So I lean towards gnostic in both the theist and atheist categories.

Much of this discussion is "psychobabble" to me, but as a christian there is always a little nagging doubt present in my mind and probably always will be as long as I live. That's why I'm in a constant effort to investigate my faith. I want the truth and if what I believe is not, then I want to know.

No you don't. You reject scientific empirical evidence wherever it may contradict your beliefs. That's not investigation, it's apologetics with doubt.

[discipulus]

We think we are special but we really are not.

Maybe you aren't, but I really am special!

Tell me, what are you?

[Mr. Moncrieff]

Maybe you aren't, but I really am special!

Tell me, what are you?

Sir, she very recently stated - quite succinctly - that she was 'special.'

[discipulus]

Tell me, what are you?

Sir, she very recently stated - quite succinctly - that she was 'special.'

No doubt. And since I asked what I asked while providing her quote in the same reply, I was hoping that it would be implicit in my question that I was asking something different.

But seeing how my question could be misinterpreted, I desire to elaborate.

rasetsu, are you a human?