Hey Kyu,
Thank you for responding again. This is an interesting and pleasing conversation. If I may make a couple small points...
You said "I'm in the Dawkins camp on this and I see no reason why ANYTHING cannot be held to the normal evidential standards and to claim that something is somehow excepted from them enters the arena of special pleading,". I have to come out and say I am pretty unimpressed with Dawkins. He is very rude, and while I agree that religious control is bad, relationship with a higher power should not be lumped into the same category. I know my god, but I am not religious. I feel that Dawkins doesn't make the distinction clear enough, saying instead that belief is the problem, or believers are dangerous. My only point, from my humble beginnings is that there is no difference in my mind between belief of god and belief that there is (or may not be) god. The lines must be clearer. If you 'act right' (call it cultural moral standards, or whatever) then it doesn't matter why. and if you can't 'act right' it also doesn't matter why not. Dawkins acts like an asshole, so regardless of his message I am not impressed.
The only reason I assume that arguments in the realm of idea and not physical reality cannnot be held to the same black-and-white standards, is because of the nature of ideas. We cannot produce evidence that god does or does not exist that will be irrefutable. The argument of god is not yet fully understood. So we can't hold it to the same forensic standards...
I do my very best not too do that. Not too see the world as I would like it, since that is untrue. I try my very best to see the world as it is, aside from my wants and views. I just won't fool myself into thinking I have succeeded.
I do understand the nature of this forum, and of the many shcools of atheism. What you are describing could be more agnostic, since it is only an admitted lack of knowledge. 'We don't know,'. I am trying to debate these concepts, that is why I am questioning.
Finally, you mentioned "So if there's no evidence we can assume there is no god and pour scorn on the claims of those who do,". That, I think is where you decide. If there is no evidence FOR god, then you would be right. But I challenge that there is no evidence for NOT god either. In fact there is much in both categories, but it is all interpreted to fit what we want. Can I pour scorn on people who say there is not god? What about people who say they don't know? Or canI pour scorn on those who pour scorn on other for disagreeing?
It all comes down to whether or not you act like an asshole, regardless of creed or color.
I try my best to not, and I hope to show that there is at least one theist who tries to conduct himself with respect and honor.
Thank you for your time,
"The eternal/internal battle of good and evil",
-Pip
PS: G-mark, yes that is the rhetorical answer. Always check why you are doing things, and if it's not out of love, than what is your motivator? I use that quote to square myself up, but thank you for answering it.
Thank you for responding again. This is an interesting and pleasing conversation. If I may make a couple small points...
You said "I'm in the Dawkins camp on this and I see no reason why ANYTHING cannot be held to the normal evidential standards and to claim that something is somehow excepted from them enters the arena of special pleading,". I have to come out and say I am pretty unimpressed with Dawkins. He is very rude, and while I agree that religious control is bad, relationship with a higher power should not be lumped into the same category. I know my god, but I am not religious. I feel that Dawkins doesn't make the distinction clear enough, saying instead that belief is the problem, or believers are dangerous. My only point, from my humble beginnings is that there is no difference in my mind between belief of god and belief that there is (or may not be) god. The lines must be clearer. If you 'act right' (call it cultural moral standards, or whatever) then it doesn't matter why. and if you can't 'act right' it also doesn't matter why not. Dawkins acts like an asshole, so regardless of his message I am not impressed.
The only reason I assume that arguments in the realm of idea and not physical reality cannnot be held to the same black-and-white standards, is because of the nature of ideas. We cannot produce evidence that god does or does not exist that will be irrefutable. The argument of god is not yet fully understood. So we can't hold it to the same forensic standards...
I do my very best not too do that. Not too see the world as I would like it, since that is untrue. I try my very best to see the world as it is, aside from my wants and views. I just won't fool myself into thinking I have succeeded.
I do understand the nature of this forum, and of the many shcools of atheism. What you are describing could be more agnostic, since it is only an admitted lack of knowledge. 'We don't know,'. I am trying to debate these concepts, that is why I am questioning.
Finally, you mentioned "So if there's no evidence we can assume there is no god and pour scorn on the claims of those who do,". That, I think is where you decide. If there is no evidence FOR god, then you would be right. But I challenge that there is no evidence for NOT god either. In fact there is much in both categories, but it is all interpreted to fit what we want. Can I pour scorn on people who say there is not god? What about people who say they don't know? Or canI pour scorn on those who pour scorn on other for disagreeing?
It all comes down to whether or not you act like an asshole, regardless of creed or color.
I try my best to not, and I hope to show that there is at least one theist who tries to conduct himself with respect and honor.
Thank you for your time,
"The eternal/internal battle of good and evil",
-Pip
PS: G-mark, yes that is the rhetorical answer. Always check why you are doing things, and if it's not out of love, than what is your motivator? I use that quote to square myself up, but thank you for answering it.
